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.

(Globe and Mail)   "You can't destroy a community like this. My heart goes out to kids with autism. But no one told me they'd be leaving the house"   (theglobeandmail.com) divider line 144
    More: Dumbass, Doug Ford, implements  
•       •       •

12434 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 May 2014 at 1:07 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-18 07:01:37 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Because prices in 2014 are the same as they were in 1980 (rolls eyes).


Not only can I not read, but I'm very, very sympathetic to the plight of the poor! Look how I white knight (some of) them! *refuses to tip*
 
2014-05-18 07:10:13 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I had no idea that there were Canadians that were utterly horrible people without any redeeming qualities whatsoever.


And yet Celine Dion will make $120K tonight in Vegas.
 
2014-05-18 07:24:39 PM  

moeburn: Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.

I thought we were talking about a house for 5 autistic kids, not a group home for troubled teens?


Pish posh. Don't you realize that autistic people are as destructive as juvenile delinquents...or worse?!

/this is sarcasm, fyi
 
2014-05-18 07:30:15 PM  

lindalouwho: Vector R: Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.

All of this. Also, a medical establishment doesn't really belong in a neighborhood anyway, especially with emergency vehicles there all hours of the day and night. There's no reason these sorts of places can't be near other medical establishments or industrial areas instead of neighborhoods.

In my ne ...


True. Placement is for "the least restrictive environment" based on agreement of parents, school district and state funding agencies.
 
2014-05-18 07:30:54 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility". It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood. Very suburban. Then, we got a group home. What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out. Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood. The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff. So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed. Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding". But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe. And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in. The behaviours didn't change.


Yeah, there's a very good reason not to want such a place around.  This was for autistics, though--they're not going to be a problem.

Benevolent Misanthrope: SecretAgentWoman: Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.

But the bad ones can go to the bad neighborhoods freely? NIMBY is crap. It doesn't matter location, it obviously matters what treatment and services these kids are getting. Sounds like they need more of both, and better supervision.

No, that's not my meaning and stop intentionally taking out ...


What he's saying is that they were doing bad things.
 
2014-05-18 07:56:21 PM  

Madame Ovary: lindalouwho: Vector R: Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.

All of this. Also, a medical establishment doesn't really belong in a neighborhood anyway, especially with emergency vehicles there all hours of the day and night. There's no reason these sorts of places can't be near other medical establishments or industrial areas instead of neighborhoods.

In my ne ...

True. Placement is for "the least restrictive environment" based on agreement of parents, school district and state funding agencies.


Just want to point out that this is in response to VectorR, as my post isn't included. And I'm not in agreement/on the same page as VectorR.
 
2014-05-18 08:05:19 PM  

BigJake: TV's Vinnie: Because prices in 2014 are the same as they were in 1980 (rolls eyes).

Not only can I not read, but I'm very, very sympathetic to the plight of the poor! Look how I white knight (some of) them! *refuses to tip*


www.mrmediatraining.com
 
2014-05-18 08:42:33 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.


This is fark where very few people own homes or have any idea what things like this will do to property values. You are going to get roasted for not being "tolerant" enough. But don't feel bad because the crowd on here that comes out to beat on you won't ever own property anyway, so you're far ahead of them from that standpoint.

That said, I used to work for a non-profit that held level 4 & 5 juvenile offenders. We actually had a group home in a residential neighborhood for a time, but had to move the kids out because of incidents like you describe. Everyone wants to put these kids in a residential setting when, at times, it just isn't appropriate. We had sex offenders in our group home and the final straw happened when one of our kids was arrested after trying to molest a younger neighborhood boy.

I know, there will be people who will attack me for this post as well, but I think if it happened to be your kid who was on the receiving end, you might think differently. And yes, our social workers thought our kids were mainly just misunderstood. In some cases they were right. Most of our kids were victims of abuse themselves and the stories about them were heartbreaking. Even so, they didn't need to live in a neighborhood setting.
 
2014-05-18 08:45:26 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.

This story smells a lot like Reagan's "Welfare Queen" bullsh*t.

I suppose you wouldn't be happy until all those kids were sent off to leper colonies.


Yep, that's exactly what the post said. You sir, are king of the douches.
 
2014-05-18 08:58:55 PM  
As one of the people in the type of neighbourhood where these home are *usually* located, I can't feel too much sympathy for errm. Mr. Ford and his constituents. I guess our paying for our home in a less expensive (read less desirable) neighbourhood means that we are just not rich enough to avoid having *all* these facilities being placed in our part of town? We do have a number of group homes and halfway house facilities around here. We are also in the part of the city that is waaaayyyy above average in the per capita number of sex offenders.

That being said, I have experienced absolutely zero crime in the 3 years I have lived here in the 'hood. It was far worse in our slightly better neighbourhood in Toronto, where things were constantly stolen, broken into and so forth. Not here. Not with all the group homes and halfway houses and various other social service agencies. Weird that.
 
2014-05-18 09:10:33 PM  
I'm gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, autistics don't rule the night. They don't rule it. Nobody does. And they don't run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.
 
2014-05-18 09:12:19 PM  
I will tolerate the tards, we need testers for new drugs. So we can stop animal testing. Can we get input from PETA?
 
2014-05-18 09:27:58 PM  

Big_Doofus: TV's Vinnie: Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.

This story smells a lot like Reagan's "Welfare Queen" bullsh*t.

I suppose you wouldn't be happy until all those kids were sent off to leper colonies.

Yep, that's exactly what the post said. You sir, are king of the douches.


Well, if he's talking about improved mental health services for juveniles, then he's the one who's REALLY missing the facts. So long as there is still a republican out there drawing breath, there will never, ever be an improvement on any services.
 
2014-05-18 09:37:11 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.


Hey look, everyone.  It's one of those paid Republican operatives.  Hi paid Republican operative?  Are you sleeping OK at night, doing the appalling thing that you do for a living?
 
2014-05-18 09:42:54 PM  

Eirik: TV's Vinnie: This story smells a lot like Reagan's "Welfare Queen" bullsh*t.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/lind a_ taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villa in.html


Interesting link; thanks for posting that.
 
2014-05-18 09:50:29 PM  

addy2: sno man: addy2: hardinparamedic: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Ever been attacked by an autistic kid? My friends kid is autistic and pretty okay most of the time but one time when the mom was visiting he went from zero the feral in about two seconds. Full on primate biting, scratching, feral rage. He also got thrown out of the local school's special ed program when he bit one of the handlers so hard the woman had to go to the hospital for stitches.

I deal with Autistic children every day. A good deal of the ill and injured children I transport are autistic.

They are not as violent or as hard to handle as you claim they are.

/and there are drugs for that.

Bull. My nephew the 200 pound kid would attack his 110 pound mother. They had to constantly have men around just in case. They found the right drugs but it took years. My friend's son would fight at her and she'd come in with bruises. denial helps nobody.

Yes, your one nephew is EXACTLY like all the kids on the spectrum.

Point is it happens, genius. And needs to be considered.


Point is, you only hear about the violent ones, like you only hear about violent, uncontrollable schizophrenics, not the 98% of those who live quietly at home or locked in non-violent delusions. And it USED to be considered until two things happened:

1. One side discovered that state homes could be closed at a great benefit to the state.

2. The other side began being concerned about the civil rights of the mentally ill and began advocating for them all to be treated exactly the same as those who were in full control of their faculties.

As a result, state group homes and developmental centers began to be closed and the residents shipped back to their communities without regard to whether or if they were ready to go, or if they understood what was waiting for them, or if there were facilities that could accept them or support them. In 95% of cases, they were able to go. In 5%, they were not, and those are the ones out on the streets or living in these substandard facilities today.

Even today, well-meaning civil rights advocates will INSIST that severely autistic, mentally ill, or profoundly retarded people (like your nephew) should be living in "least restrictive environments" by which they mean homes or unsecured facilities and they will do anything they can to block returning such individuals to more secure facilities. At the same time, states lack money and cut funding to "unnecessary" locked facilities because we have the drugs to keep "those people" under control. Except sometimes we don't and even if we do, they need constant maintenance.

It's just not as simple as either let'emallout or lock'emallup, no matter how badly people want to think it is. There is no one size fits all: We need a case-by-case fit for each and every person out there. Costs more up front, but the savings will come at the back end when they all don't have to be warehoused in prisons and mental wards for the rest of their lives.
 
2014-05-18 09:51:27 PM  

Big_Doofus: This is fark where very few people own homes or have any idea what things like this will do to property values. You are going to get roasted for not being "tolerant" enough. But don't feel bad because the crowd on here that comes out to beat on you won't ever own property anyway, so you're far ahead of them f ...


Yes, this is Fark, where people who are so ignorant and/or have led lives so sheltered that they cannot tell the difference between autistic teenagers, mentally ill teenagers and juvenile sex offenders conflate the groups in sanctimonious posts unsullied by any actual facts.

You, and he, and everyone else on this thread doing that, and Doug Ford, are idiots.

I don't believe any of you have any evidence whatsoever of a correlation between autism group homes and declining property values.  I certainly haven't observed any in my little nook of suburbia.  If you have any, post it or STFU.

/owns property
 
2014-05-18 10:14:53 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Even today, well-meaning civil rights advocates will INSIST that severely autistic, mentally ill, or profoundly retarded people (like your nephew) should be living in "least restrictive environments" by which they mean homes or unsecured facilities and they will do anything they can to block returning such individuals to more secure facilities.


As a parent of one of those profoundly developmentally disabled people, and a strong advocate for least restrictive environment (which has the added benefit of being the law where education is concerned, at least in the USA), I've had different experiences.  The advocates I talk to understand perfectly well that some individuals require more restrictive environments than others, and that a range of solutions is necessary.  There are, however, a lot of service providers and policy makers who don't, largely because the budget numbers work out better if you ignore the severe end of the bell curve.  So I think you're oversimplifying things here, and blaming the wrong entity.

In the autism world, if you want to understand the situation, follow the money.  Growth in autism diagnoses in the last decade has mostly been mild and moderate cases (fueled in part by over diagnosis - fact is that many of the mild cases are really just "Lego kids" who would not have been diagnosed as autistic a generation ago), where unrestrictive environments are appropriate.  It is therefore no accident that service providers concentrate on least restrictive solutions, and politicians glom onto them so they can appear effective with limited funds.  And I can't really blame them (that's politics), except that solutions appropriate to my kid seem always to be left out of consideration.

It should also be pointed out that many, if not most of the historic large-scale, restrictive residential facilities that are being replaced by group homes and home-based services (at least in my state) were basically patronage-driven cost sinks and/or snake pits and needed to be shut down on efficiency, anti-corruption and/or humanitarian grounds.
 
2014-05-18 10:42:25 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Big_Doofus: TV's Vinnie: Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.

This story smells a lot like Reagan's "Welfare Queen" bullsh*t.

I suppose you wouldn't be happy until all those kids were sent off to leper colonies.

Yep, that's exactly what the post said. You sir, are king of the douches.

Well, if he's talking about improved mental health services ...


Wow, overgeneralize much?
 
2014-05-18 10:47:04 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Big_Doofus: This is fark where very few people own homes or have any idea what things like this will do to property values. You are going to get roasted for not being "tolerant" enough. But don't feel bad because the crowd on here that comes out to beat on you won't ever own property anyway, so you're far ahead of them f ...

Yes, this is Fark, where people who are so ignorant and/or have led lives so sheltered that they cannot tell the difference between autistic teenagers, mentally ill teenagers and juvenile sex offenders conflate the groups in sanctimonious posts unsullied by any actual facts.

You, and he, and everyone else on this thread doing that, and Doug Ford, are idiots.

I don't believe any of you have any evidence whatsoever of a correlation between autism group homes and declining property values.  I certainly haven't observed any in my little nook of suburbia.  If you have any, post it or STFU.

/owns property


I don't know about autism group homes being a problem.  I was just referring to group homes in general that can sometimes be a problem. Not all group homes are bad, some work very well and are a vital link to helping people function in society.  Some don't work as well and can damage a neighborhood.  And no, I won't STFU just because someone like you wants to make this completely black and white.  There's plenty of grey in between.
 
2014-05-18 10:48:39 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Gyrfalcon: Even today, well-meaning civil rights advocates will INSIST that severely autistic, mentally ill, or profoundly retarded people (like your nephew) should be living in "least restrictive environments" by which they mean homes or unsecured facilities and they will do anything they can to block returning such individuals to more secure facilities.

As a parent of one of those profoundly developmentally disabled people, and a strong advocate for least restrictive environment (which has the added benefit of being the law where education is concerned, at least in the USA), I've had different experiences.  The advocates I talk to understand perfectly well that some individuals require more restrictive environments than others, and that a range of solutions is necessary.  There are, however, a lot of service providers and policy makers who don't, largely because the budget numbers work out better if you ignore the severe end of the bell curve.  So I think you're oversimplifying things here, and blaming the wrong entity.

In the autism world, if you want to understand the situation, follow the money.  Growth in autism diagnoses in the last decade has mostly been mild and moderate cases (fueled in part by over diagnosis - fact is that many of the mild cases are really just "Lego kids" who would not have been diagnosed as autistic a generation ago), where unrestrictive environments are appropriate.  It is therefore no accident that service providers concentrate on least restrictive solutions, and politicians glom onto them so they can appear effective with limited funds.  And I can't really blame them (that's politics), except that solutions appropriate to my kid seem always to be left out of consideration.

It should also be pointed out that many, if not most of the historic large-scale, restrictive residential facilities that are being replaced by group homes and home-based services (at least in my state) were basically patronage-driven cost sinks and/or snake pit ...


Also, you don't have any skin in the game or any biases, do you? How about you STFU?
 
2014-05-18 11:08:08 PM  

Big_Doofus: Wow, overgeneralize much?


Wow, can't shut up much?
 
2014-05-18 11:12:23 PM  

Big_Doofus: Autistic Hiker: Big_Doofus: This is fark where very few people own homes or have any idea what things like this will do to property values. You are going to get roasted for not being "tolerant" enough. But don't feel bad because the crowd on here that comes out to beat on you won't ever own property anyway, so you're far ahead of them f ...

Yes, this is Fark, where people who are so ignorant and/or have led lives so sheltered that they cannot tell the difference between autistic teenagers, mentally ill teenagers and juvenile sex offenders conflate the groups in sanctimonious posts unsullied by any actual facts.

You, and he, and everyone else on this thread doing that, and Doug Ford, are idiots.

I don't believe any of you have any evidence whatsoever of a correlation between autism group homes and declining property values.  I certainly haven't observed any in my little nook of suburbia.  If you have any, post it or STFU.

/owns property

I don't know about autism group homes being a problem.  I was just referring to group homes in general that can sometimes be a problem. Not all group homes are bad, some work very well and are a vital link to helping people function in society.  Some don't work as well and can damage a neighborhood.  And no, I won't STFU just because someone like you wants to make this completely black and white.  There's plenty of grey in between.



In response to Benevolent Misanthrope's posting "...it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value...", you wrote, "This is fark where very few people own homes or have any idea what things like this will do to property values."  Neither of you know what you are talking about, and I am calling you on it.

I see that you have not posted any actual facts in response to that challenge.  I think this is because the facts do not support you, but just in case your Google is broken, here are some relatively recent roundups of studies by state agencies that may inform you on the matter:

http://www.nj.gov/humanservices/clients/disability/goodneighbors/fa q.h tml

"There is an overwhelming volume of evidence that homes for people with disabilities do not significantly impact property values."

http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/pdf/80s/85/85-EGH-CSR.pdf

"The results support the notion that group homes do not adversely affect neighborhood property values."

Perhaps I overqualified my challenge in terms of autism alone, which was the focus of Doug Ford's remarks in TFA and to which, in response, Benevolent Misanthrope and many others have attempted the aforementioned conflation of other irrelevant groups.  No matter, you still haven't posted any evidence supporting what you now claim you were saying about 'group homes in general', and until you do, I'm gonna stick with 'you don't know what you are talking about' as my response.  Frankly, I'm starting to wonder whether you really do own property.
 
2014-05-18 11:18:52 PM  

Big_Doofus: Also, you don't have any skin in the game or any biases, do you? How about you STFU?


Ya got me, obviously having an interest in matters of public policy that affect me and my family directly disqualifies me from any kind of rational discussion.  It's a good thing I own property or nobody would ever listen to me.
 
2014-05-18 11:21:39 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Big_Doofus: Wow, overgeneralize much?

Wow, can't shut up much?


Nice response.  About what I expected.
 
2014-05-18 11:23:58 PM  

moeburn: From how I understand it, if you leave an autistic person alone, they will leave you alone.  They don't like people.


Although they have difficulties with communication and appropriate social behavior, that doesn't necessarily mean they dislike human contact.
 
2014-05-18 11:28:27 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Big_Doofus: Autistic Hiker: Big_Doofus: This is fark where very few people own homes or have any idea what things like this will do to property values. You are going to get roasted for not being "tolerant" enough. But don't feel bad because the crowd on here that comes out to beat on you won't ever own property anyway, so you're far ahead of them f ...

Yes, this is Fark, where people who are so ignorant and/or have led lives so sheltered that they cannot tell the difference between autistic teenagers, mentally ill teenagers and juvenile sex offenders conflate the groups in sanctimonious posts unsullied by any actual facts.

You, and he, and everyone else on this thread doing that, and Doug Ford, are idiots.

I don't believe any of you have any evidence whatsoever of a correlation between autism group homes and declining property values.  I certainly haven't observed any in my little nook of suburbia.  If you have any, post it or STFU.

/owns property

I don't know about autism group homes being a problem.  I was just referring to group homes in general that can sometimes be a problem. Not all group homes are bad, some work very well and are a vital link to helping people function in society.  Some don't work as well and can damage a neighborhood.  And no, I won't STFU just because someone like you wants to make this completely black and white.  There's plenty of grey in between.


In response to Benevolent Misanthrope's posting "...it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value...", you wrote, "This is fark where very few people own homes or have any idea what things like this will do to property values."  Neither of you know what you are talking about, and I am calling you on it.

I see that you have not posted any actual facts in response to that challenge.  I think this is because the facts do not support you, but just in case your Google is broken, here are some relatively recent roundups of studies by state agencies that may inform you on ...



The Effect of Group Homes on Neighborhood Property Values
Peter F. Colwell, Carolyn A. Dehring, and Nicholas A. Lash
"In our study  of seven group homes neighborhoods in DuPageCounty, Illinois, we find that properties which areproximate to group homes experience a decline in value following the announcement of a group home's pending establishment."

There you go.

Am I against group homes?  Nope.  As I stated earlier, I think they can do a lot of good for people who need to be reintegrated into society.  They just have to be run well and have to be used when appropriate.

You can disagree withBenevolent Misanthrope's post,but you didn't live there and experience what he/she did so I find that to be somewhatdisingenuous.
 
2014-05-18 11:39:01 PM  

Big_Doofus: TV's Vinnie: Big_Doofus: Wow, overgeneralize much?

Wow, can't shut up much?

Nice response.  About what I expected.


Glad that I delivered.
 
2014-05-18 11:41:22 PM  

Big_Doofus: "In our study  of seven group homes neighborhoods in DuPageCounty, Illinois, we find that properties which are proximate to group homes experience a decline in value following the announcement of a group home's pending establishment."


LOL, did you read the line in the abstract that directly precedes it?  "The majority of studies examining the impact of group homes on neighborhood property values have found that group homes do not adversely effect property values. "

Or pretty much anything else that came up in your Google search that contradicts your view?  As in, pretty much everything else?

You're not fooling anybody, kiddo.  Better luck next time.
 
2014-05-18 11:44:24 PM  
For the Farkers living in fear of folks with mental health, chew on this fact:

People with mental health issues are disproportionally the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators of crime.
 
2014-05-18 11:49:00 PM  

Big_Doofus: That said, I used to work for a non-profit that held level 4 & 5 juvenile offenders. We actually had a group home in a residential neighborhood for a time, but had to move the kids out because of incidents like you describe. Everyone wants to put these kids in a residential setting when, at times, it just isn't appropriate. We had sex offenders in our group home and the final straw happened when one of our kids was arrested after trying to molest a younger neighborhood boy.

I know, there will be people who will attack me for this post as well, but I think if it happened to be your kid who was on the receiving end, you might think differently. And yes, our social workers thought our kids were mainly just misunderstood. In some cases they were right. Most of our kids were victims of abuse themselves and the stories about them were heartbreaking. Even so, they didn't need to live in a neighborhood setting.


Yeah, just because they were victims doesn't mean they weren't also perpetrators.
 
2014-05-18 11:52:19 PM  

Big_Doofus: The Effect of Group Homes on Neighborhood Property Values
Peter F. Colwell, Carolyn A. Dehring, and Nicholas A. Lash
"In our study  of seven group homes neighborhoods in DuPageCounty, Illinois, we find that properties which areproximate to group homes experience a decline in value following the announcement of a group home's pending establishment."

There you go.


If you're going to link a study to support your opinion, don't cherry pick that story. You might have wanted to complete that sentence.

The Effect of Group Homes on Neighborhood Property Values

This is from page 636 of the 2000 Study published in the journal of Land Economics.

img.fark.net
 
2014-05-18 11:54:04 PM  
And before you ask, no, I didn't pay 17 bucks to prove you wrong. My hospital has an institutional account with JSTOR
 
2014-05-19 12:02:27 AM  

Autistic Hiker: Big_Doofus: "In our study  of seven group homes neighborhoods in DuPageCounty, Illinois, we find that properties which are proximate to group homes experience a decline in value following the announcement of a group home's pending establishment."

LOL, did you read the line in the abstract that directly precedes it?  "The majority of studies examining the impact of group homes on neighborhood property values have found that group homes do not adversely effect property values. "

Or pretty much anything else that came up in your Google search that contradicts your view?  As in, pretty much everything else?

You're not fooling anybody, kiddo.  Better luck next time.


You didn't read the entire study.  They take a look at several of the prior studies and show their flaws.  They take a different statistical look.  "In our analysis,observations across time and space are incorporatedinto a format that is similar to an eventstudy. Our model is the first in this literature toaccommodate different price levels and appreciationrates across neighborhoods."

Sothere you go kiddo.
 
2014-05-19 12:04:15 AM  

hardinparamedic: And before you ask, no, I didn't pay 17 bucks to prove you wrong. My hospital has an institutional account with JSTOR


Guess what? So does the health care institution where I work!  And you didn't prove me wrong.  Read the whole thing.

By they way, how are you?  At least we haven't gotten each other banned recently!  That's gotta be worth something.
 
2014-05-19 03:30:18 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.


Yep, people love to demonize anyone who says the non-politically-correct thing, but they seriously fail to consider the honest truth of the situation: group homes are where serious offenders are sent after serving time, or sent in lieu of serving time. No homeowner is going to want a place like that in their neighborhood if they know what truly comes with it.
 
2014-05-19 07:40:12 AM  

Evil Canadian: As one of the people in the type of neighbourhood where these home are *usually* located, I can't feel too much sympathy for errm. Mr. Ford and his constituents. I guess our paying for our home in a less expensive (read less desirable) neighbourhood means that we are just not rich enough to avoid having *all* these facilities being placed in our part of town? We do have a number of group homes and halfway house facilities around here. We are also in the part of the city that is waaaayyyy above average in the per capita number of sex offenders.

That being said, I have experienced absolutely zero crime in the 3 years I have lived here in the 'hood. It was far worse in our slightly better neighbourhood in Toronto, where things were constantly stolen, broken into and so forth. Not here. Not with all the group homes and halfway houses and various other social service agencies. Weird that.


If you hadn't mentioned Toronto I would think you were a neighbor of mine.

Have lived here a year and a half. There were 3 massive sweeps of the drug dealers who were doing some shooting in the first 8 months, and now the neighborhood is on the upswing. A theater and a music venue have opened; I'm happy here.
 
2014-05-19 09:32:59 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.


This.

The rural neighborhood I grew up in where kids could play outside unattended, etc., had a house purchased by the state for use as a home for troubled kids. The kids are brought there from the city and they are supposed to live in a family environment and get a fresh start, except that it took no time at all for the place to be over-whelmed and under-staffed. Now it's about a dozen teenage kids, some of whom have babies themselves and only a rotating staff about 4 adults. Not long ago one of the kids in that home lured a 5 year old neighborhood boy inside with the promise of playing video games and then proceeded to molest and beat him. A staff member EVENTUALLY showed up but the situation could easily have been much more horrific.

Now, that neighborhood's whole character and existence is defined by the presence of that one group home. That's too bad.
 
2014-05-19 09:36:47 AM  

lindalouwho: THERE'S TWO OF THEM?!!

/Ford's, I mean


four of them. Don't forget big bro Randy and sister Kathy.
 
2014-05-19 09:46:35 AM  

gshepnyc: Benevolent Misanthrope: It's a little more complicated than that,  subby.

I watched the neighbourhood I grew up in completely changed by a "multi-treatment facility".  It was a quiet place, people were nice, we kids could play outside, nobody got broken in on... nice neighbourhood.  Very suburban.  Then, we got a group home.  What can I say - mentally ill teenagers act out.  Within 3 months, there were break-ins, cars keyed, fights in the alleyway, teenage kids on "free time" terrorizing the kids from the neighbourhood, cops being called day and night, ambulances pulling up day and night... it did ruin the neighbourhood.  The first argument from the workers was that everyone were just prejudiced against the mentally ill, and no one could prove it was "their" kids doing that stuff.  So some neighbours got security cameras and caught the little bastards red-handed.  Then the tune changed to "need for tolerance and understanding".  But it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value and your family no longer feel safe.  And even if the kid got sent to juvie, another one came in.  The behaviours didn't change.

So, yes - if I'd spent 30 years paying off a mortgage on a house in a nice neighbourhood, and those kinds of behaviours started happening because a group home came in, I'd be pissed off, too.

That said, there is a need for better mental health services, especially for juveniles.  I'd like to see a tiered approach by which more levels are added, so that the kids who are placed in group homes in nicer neighbourhoods are ready to function socially there.  But maybe we should concentrate on actually offering mental health services first.

This.

The rural neighborhood I grew up in where kids could play outside unattended, etc., had a house purchased by the state for use as a home for troubled kids. The kids are brought there from the city and they are supposed to live in a family environment and get a fresh start, except that it took no time at ...


But but but....Autistic Hiker says these group homes never adversely affect neighborhoods and anyone who complains about them is an unfeeling animal!

See? I can generalize too!
 
2014-05-19 01:28:57 PM  

Loren: Yeah, just because they were victims doesn't mean they weren't also perpetrators.


Greylight: People with mental health issues are disproportionally the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators of crime.


Or maybe, just maybe, the big scary brush of "mental illness" is too broad to be useful for anything. Except as a rhetorical device, of course: it's great for playing to people's fears. Just not for actually doing anything.
 
2014-05-19 04:47:37 PM  
The phrase "mental health" is NOT a rhetorical device.  What a strange idea.  Just because you see a butter knife as a screwdriver does not change the meaning of butter knife.  For the record autism is seen as a developmental rather than mental health issue.
 
2014-05-19 06:09:22 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Big_Doofus: Autistic Hiker: Big_Doofus: This is fark where very few people own homes or have any idea what things like this will do to property values. You are going to get roasted for not being "tolerant" enough. But don't feel bad because the crowd on here that comes out to beat on you won't ever own property anyway, so you're far ahead of them f ...

Yes, this is Fark, where people who are so ignorant and/or have led lives so sheltered that they cannot tell the difference between autistic teenagers, mentally ill teenagers and juvenile sex offenders conflate the groups in sanctimonious posts unsullied by any actual facts.

You, and he, and everyone else on this thread doing that, and Doug Ford, are idiots.

I don't believe any of you have any evidence whatsoever of a correlation between autism group homes and declining property values.  I certainly haven't observed any in my little nook of suburbia.  If you have any, post it or STFU.

/owns property

I don't know about autism group homes being a problem.  I was just referring to group homes in general that can sometimes be a problem. Not all group homes are bad, some work very well and are a vital link to helping people function in society.  Some don't work as well and can damage a neighborhood.  And no, I won't STFU just because someone like you wants to make this completely black and white.  There's plenty of grey in between.


In response to Benevolent Misanthrope's posting "...it's hard to be tolerant when your home has lost thousands in value...", you wrote, "This is fark where very few people own homes or have any idea what things like this will do to property values."  Neither of you know what you are talking about, and I am calling you on it.

I see that you have not posted any actual facts in response to that challenge.  I think this is because the facts do not support you, but just in case your Google is broken, here are some relatively recent roundups of studies by state agencies that may inform you on ...


You are now faved.
 
2014-05-19 06:12:39 PM  
Cerebral Ballsy
Yep, people love to demonize anyone who says the non-politically-correct thing, but they seriously fail to consider the honest truth of the situation: group homes are where serious offenders are sent after serving time, or sent in lieu of serving time. No homeowner is going to want a place like that in their n ...

These aren't offenders. These are autistic people who have done other than be autistic.

Is that an offense in your eyes?
 
Displayed 44 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report