Skip to content
 
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.

(Westword)   Denver plans to create designated urban camping sites for the homeless, in a decision which will surely end well   (westword.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Municipality, Homelessness, City council, establishment of temporary safe camping sites, Mayor, United States Capitol, Town council, Denver's homeless population  
•       •       •

1246 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2020 at 11:57 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-07-02 11:39:33 AM  
The location for the homeless camp (trumpville) has not be chosen. Willing to bet the location will be in the north side.
 
2020-07-02 11:45:05 AM  
Any activity you subsidize, you get more of.
 
2020-07-02 11:48:18 AM  
Trumpville will go into Denver zip code 80216.
 
2020-07-02 11:49:12 AM  
Due to COVID-19, the humanitarian crisis of homelessness is even more dire today than it was just a few short months ago. These are extraordinary times that call for extraordinary measures," Hancock says in a statement released today, July 1, that notes the mayor has approved the establishment of multiple campsites.

Let's see what these extraordinary measures are.

However, while the initial proposal, which called for one site for up to 100 individuals with access to bathrooms, was presented to key Hancock administration members in late April, it's taken over two months for the mayor to endorse the idea. And when first asked about it, he expressed considerable opposition.

This is pathetic at best. But ok! He's on board, what else?

Advocates hope to have the first site established within two weeks.

I think all members of our community will benefit from this Safe Outdoor Space.

While the providers pushing the proposal say they've secured outside funding for the camps, a GoFundMe site has been created to help defer the costs of tents and sleeping bags.

Hancock also indicated that he's backing a ballot initiative being championed by Councilwoman Robin Kniech, which would raise the city's sales tax by .25 percent and send that money to a dedicated fund for homelessness.


In the future we will hear: "We let them sleep outdoors on donated sleeping bags and port o potties. We allowed people to volunteer to help them. I think we all deserve a nice pat on the back."
 
2020-07-02 11:49:59 AM  

dj_bigbird: Any activity you subsidize, you get more of.


True. This is just like police violence.
 
2020-07-02 11:50:36 AM  
Sanctuary districts?
 
2020-07-02 11:58:01 AM  
So, there will be no change in the 16th street mall area?
 
2020-07-02 12:03:06 PM  
Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.
 
2020-07-02 12:04:24 PM  

Oreminer: So, there will be no change in the 16th street mall area?


It will be officially "designated" now.
 
2020-07-02 12:05:12 PM  
This is America
 
2020-07-02 12:05:30 PM  

dj_bigbird: Any activity you subsidize, you get more of.


Yes, we are subsidizing them camping in designated spaces as opposed to alleyways. We will get more camping in designated spaces.
 
2020-07-02 12:09:28 PM  
Anything is better than them taking over civic center park, which is the current situation.
There are now semi permanent homeless camps popping up all over Denver and now starting towards the suburbs.
This shiat isn't going away, especially with rent due again like farking now.
 
2020-07-02 12:09:55 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-02 12:10:17 PM  
This is not new. Phoenix has already designated an "urban camping site" for their homeless. They call it "Los Angeles."
 
2020-07-02 12:10:54 PM  
This will certainly make it easier for the police to locate and harass them.
 
2020-07-02 12:11:05 PM  

Nadie_AZ: dj_bigbird: Any activity you subsidize, you get more of.

True. This is just like police violence.


Good point
 
2020-07-02 12:11:15 PM  

firefly212: Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.


Why not simply provide housing?
 
2020-07-02 12:11:53 PM  
Just give them a cruise ship or 2.
 
2020-07-02 12:13:07 PM  

firefly212: Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.


Agreed
So, how many unoccupied buildings / units are there currently in Denver.

This statistic will become increasingly more relevant as 2020 progresses
 
2020-07-02 12:13:24 PM  

Alien Robot: firefly212: Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.

Why not simply provide housing?


When you provide housing and ban drinking and drugs from the housing the drunks and drug addicts stay on the streets anyway.
 
2020-07-02 12:13:24 PM  
Can they designate official jaywalking lanes?  The homeless seem to like jaywalking.
 
2020-07-02 12:18:11 PM  

firefly212: Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.


Exactly, but the OMG, HOMELESS!!!  Idiots will still fear-monger.
 
2020-07-02 12:18:26 PM  

Alien Robot: firefly212: Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.

Why not simply provide housing?


Uhm, because if they had housing rather then tents it would slow down the progress of exposing the "undesirables" to covid19?

Just a paranoid thought.
 
2020-07-02 12:18:56 PM  

Markoff_Cheney: Anything is better than them taking over civic center park, which is the current situation.
There are now semi permanent homeless camps popping up all over Denver and now starting towards the suburbs.
This shiat isn't going away, especially with rent due again like farking now.


Somehow I don't think the homeless advocates and whatnot are going to be on board with cleaning them out of Civic Center Park and sending them to the more out-of-the-way locations these campsites are bound to be at. Also expect the neighbors of these campsites to get upset. Also expect potential lawsuits against Denver over safety issues at the campsites.
 
2020-07-02 12:20:13 PM  
So cops will know where to drop tear gas for the lulz
 
2020-07-02 12:20:45 PM  
For Pete's sake.  It can't be that difficult to give homeless people some sort of housing.

Why not take an abandoned high school (looks like Montbello closed recent in Denver, just using it as an example), open the doors and turn the lights, water, and heat on?

They can set up dorm style housing in the the classrooms, there are bathrooms available, showers in the locker room (the homeless can store anything valuable and extra clothes they have in the lockers).  You could probably set up some sort of 'government' and a health clinic in the office.  Bring in a few teachers and work on getting them GEDs.

It would cost the amount of the utilities, maybe a security guard or two (though most homeless camps are self policing), and a nurse and maybe a mental health counselor.  Homeless people are pretty creative and can set up the inside however they want.  If the experiment fails, they are probably planning on tearing it down anyway.

No, it's not perfect, but at least they are indoors and not living in tents in Denver. If they have a tent they can put it up in the gym.

Meanwhile in LA they have built just a handful of units with a $1 billion bond issued to handle it and they think that each unit will cost $400,000.
 
2020-07-02 12:21:37 PM  
Why don't they just house them under the airport?
 
2020-07-02 12:21:59 PM  

give me doughnuts: This will certainly make it easier for the police to locate and harass them.


Think of it as a game preserve.
 
2020-07-02 12:23:10 PM  

dj_bigbird: Any activity you subsidize, you get more of.


Except oil production ;)
 
2020-07-02 12:26:56 PM  

Vtimlin: Alien Robot: firefly212: Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.

Why not simply provide housing?

When you provide housing and ban drinking and drugs from the housing the drunks and drug addicts stay on the streets anyway.


The Portland hotel example of providing housing and not banning drinking or drugs use by people using it in Vancouver BC does offer another example. Just having the homeless in a location that services can be provided is cheaper for a city
 
2020-07-02 12:27:29 PM  

jtown: Why don't they just house them under the airport?


As sacrifices for Blucifer?
 
2020-07-02 12:27:38 PM  

dj_bigbird: Any activity you subsidize, you get more of.


Until you run out of demand, though. If they'd built enough section-whatever (I don't know their housing code) to house their homeless and impoverished people, they'd meet demand and not have homeless camping in their public spaces. OFC this policy only works if you implement it to some degree nationwide, or else you get the liberal-cities-as-destinations for homeless South Park episode.  I think 15% public investment in the national housing market (As a % of total ownership) would do the trick for the country, it seems to be a baseline for other industrialized countries that socialize housing for the poor.
 
2020-07-02 12:42:19 PM  
It's like nobody in politics watched Deep Space Nine.
 
2020-07-02 12:45:32 PM  

El_Dan: Markoff_Cheney: Anything is better than them taking over civic center park, which is the current situation.
There are now semi permanent homeless camps popping up all over Denver and now starting towards the suburbs.
This shiat isn't going away, especially with rent due again like farking now.

Somehow I don't think the homeless advocates and whatnot are going to be on board with cleaning them out of Civic Center Park and sending them to the more out-of-the-way locations these campsites are bound to be at. Also expect the neighbors of these campsites to get upset. Also expect potential lawsuits against Denver over safety issues at the campsites.


You've described every problem that is currently happening with little supervision in public parks around the city.
It needs to be centralized and approved, something legal and more permanent.
The cops just bust these up every few weeks because there is no actual system in place for things like trash collection etc on the scale needed.
Attempting to address the issue is better than the current option.
 
2020-07-02 12:46:38 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: For Pete's sake.  It can't be that difficult to give homeless people some sort of housing.

Why not take an abandoned high school (looks like Montbello closed recent in Denver, just using it as an example), open the doors and turn the lights, water, and heat on?

They can set up dorm style housing in the the classrooms, there are bathrooms available, showers in the locker room (the homeless can store anything valuable and extra clothes they have in the lockers).  You could probably set up some sort of 'government' and a health clinic in the office.  Bring in a few teachers and work on getting them GEDs.

It would cost the amount of the utilities, maybe a security guard or two (though most homeless camps are self policing), and a nurse and maybe a mental health counselor.  Homeless people are pretty creative and can set up the inside however they want.  If the experiment fails, they are probably planning on tearing it down anyway.

No, it's not perfect, but at least they are indoors and not living in tents in Denver. If they have a tent they can put it up in the gym.

Meanwhile in LA they have built just a handful of units with a $1 billion bond issued to handle it and they think that each unit will cost $400,000.


And to really do it on the cheap, just bulldoze it now.  Save the time and expense of waiting for it to become drug and filth infested and having to relocate everyone.
 
2020-07-02 12:54:52 PM  
There are only three choices when it comes to the homeless:

1. Provide them with homes (or at least shelters)
2. Provide them with a designated area where they can make the best of being homeless, i.e. a "camp"
3. Don't designate an area and have them set up on benches, doorways, parks, or anywhere else they can find

So which one of those would you like to support?

OK, I guess there is always option 4, namely "move them along so that they become somebody else's problem for a few days until they get shoved back here" or the ever popular "if we make life unpleasant enough for them, they will magically give up being homeless", which begs the question of how much worse their situation could be...
 
2020-07-02 12:54:58 PM  
There's already a place for bums to hang out doing nothing. It's called Coors field. Just turn it into a homeless park.
 
2020-07-02 12:56:11 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Due to COVID-19, the humanitarian crisis of homelessness is even more dire today than it was just a few short months ago. These are extraordinary times that call for extraordinary measures," Hancock says in a statement released today, July 1, that notes the mayor has approved the establishment of multiple campsites.

Let's see what these extraordinary measures are.

However, while the initial proposal, which called for one site for up to 100 individuals with access to bathrooms, was presented to key Hancock administration members in late April, it's taken over two months for the mayor to endorse the idea. And when first asked about it, he expressed considerable opposition.

This is pathetic at best. But ok! He's on board, what else?

Advocates hope to have the first site established within two weeks.

I think all members of our community will benefit from this Safe Outdoor Space.

While the providers pushing the proposal say they've secured outside funding for the camps, a GoFundMe site has been created to help defer the costs of tents and sleeping bags.

Hancock also indicated that he's backing a ballot initiative being championed by Councilwoman Robin Kniech, which would raise the city's sales tax by .25 percent and send that money to a dedicated fund for homelessness.

In the future we will hear: "We let them sleep outdoors on donated sleeping bags and port o potties. We allowed people to volunteer to help them. I think we all deserve a nice pat on the back."


Looks like he wanted indoor shelter, but no one cooperated.  We've had some amazing response and set up of indoor shelters in Buffalo, NY.
 
2020-07-02 12:56:36 PM  

dj_bigbird: Any activity you subsidize, you get more of.


Right, because living in a camp for homeless people is so desirable, people are clamoring to do it if only they could afford to. /s

Honestly, I can't tell whether this comment is serious or well-disguised sarcasm. We've been subsidizing extremely rich people for decades, and we don't seem to be getting more of those?
 
2020-07-02 1:01:23 PM  

Alien Robot: firefly212: Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.

Why not simply provide housing?


Some people actually have no intention or desire of getting housed.  Also, a portion of your benefit goes toward housing.  If your benefit is small, that's a big chunk of your only income.  Some have no income at all.  Can take years to build the kind of trust to get some people housed.
 
2020-07-02 1:03:59 PM  

Gyro the Greek Sandwich Pirate: It's like nobody in politics watched Deep Space Nine.


Came for this, leaving  Trekified.
 
2020-07-02 1:04:47 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: For Pete's sake.  It can't be that difficult to give homeless people some sort of housing.

Why not take an abandoned high school (looks like Montbello closed recent in Denver, just using it as an example), open the doors and turn the lights, water, and heat on?

They can set up dorm style housing in the the classrooms, there are bathrooms available, showers in the locker room (the homeless can store anything valuable and extra clothes they have in the lockers).  You could probably set up some sort of 'government' and a health clinic in the office.  Bring in a few teachers and work on getting them GEDs.

It would cost the amount of the utilities, maybe a security guard or two (though most homeless camps are self policing), and a nurse and maybe a mental health counselor.  Homeless people are pretty creative and can set up the inside however they want.  If the experiment fails, they are probably planning on tearing it down anyway.

No, it's not perfect, but at least they are indoors and not living in tents in Denver. If they have a tent they can put it up in the gym.

Meanwhile in LA they have built just a handful of units with a $1 billion bond issued to handle it and they think that each unit will cost $400,000.


There aren't that many abandoned schools around.  And, unless they are converted immediately after the school closes (or have a 24/7 guard or at least a 24/7 monitored alarm system), they will be completely trashed inside within months (by homeless people themselves as well as scrappers and taggers and druggies and teenagers being teenagers).  Also, when you close a school, chances are it's about ready to fall apart anyways.  And, when you open a shelter, it has to meet certain safety standards, and you most certainly have to staff it heavily.

A lot of times there's a solution to a problem that's simple, obvious, and wrong.  "Just convert x to house homeless people; it'll be cheap and easy" is a simple, obvious answer that usually is wrong as it is rarely cheap nor easy.
 
2020-07-02 1:06:31 PM  
Question for Fark's impressive array of genius: what kinds of solutions to the intractable problems of life would end well?
 
2020-07-02 1:10:55 PM  
Portland Hotel Society (PHS) provides long-term supportive housing in the Downtown East Side (DTES) of Vancouver. PHS promotes affordable housing, providing shelter for those living with addictions, mental health issues, and health challenges. PHS provides a "village community" following a harm reduction and housing first approach, accepting residents as they are through numerous partnerships.  PHS provides on-site support workers, a medical and dental clinic, a credit union, life skills, pre-vocational skills training, employment opportunities, sobriety and detox programs, supervised injection site, counselling, home support services, and arts and recreational activities.  PHS provides housing and care for 1,200 poor, elderly, addicted and mentally challenged individuals.

A chronically homeless person costs the tax payer an average of $35,578 per year.
Supportive housing costs on average $12,800 and cuts the average cost per homeless person to tax payers by half.
 
2020-07-02 1:13:48 PM  

HugeMistake: There are only three choices when it comes to the homeless:

1. Provide them with homes (or at least shelters)
2. Provide them with a designated area where they can make the best of being homeless, i.e. a "camp"
3. Don't designate an area and have them set up on benches, doorways, parks, or anywhere else they can find

So which one of those would you like to support?


I say #1.  Problem is the home/shelter will be what they make of it, which is usually a mess.
 
2020-07-02 1:14:28 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: For Pete's sake.  It can't be that difficult to give homeless people some sort of housing.

Why not take an abandoned high school (looks like Montbello closed recent in Denver, just using it as an example), open the doors and turn the lights, water, and heat on?

They can set up dorm style housing in the the classrooms, there are bathrooms available, showers in the locker room (the homeless can store anything valuable and extra clothes they have in the lockers).  You could probably set up some sort of 'government' and a health clinic in the office.  Bring in a few teachers and work on getting them GEDs.

It would cost the amount of the utilities, maybe a security guard or two (though most homeless camps are self policing), and a nurse and maybe a mental health counselor.  Homeless people are pretty creative and can set up the inside however they want.  If the experiment fails, they are probably planning on tearing it down anyway.

No, it's not perfect, but at least they are indoors and not living in tents in Denver. If they have a tent they can put it up in the gym.

Meanwhile in LA they have built just a handful of units with a $1 billion bond issued to handle it and they think that each unit will cost $400,000.


First you have to prove the problem in your community exists to HUD via 'Point in Time' count of homeless over years.  Then HUD approves you gutting other HUD funded programs to fund your new project.  Then if you prove you can manage it well, then hope that HUD provides funding.  Can take years.  City, County, State, community can sometimes help, but you're talking big comparative dollars to stand up a 100 bed shelter.  The agencies _might_ help you if you've earned their trust _and_ they aren't drowning in need themselves.

It's taken 3 years to get a neighboring county (in NY) to admit defeat and accept help.  They were good passionate people, just drowning in trying to bail an ocean with a spoon for so long.
 
2020-07-02 1:18:02 PM  

Alien Robot: firefly212: Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.

Why not simply provide housing?


Having volunteered with homeless people for a while, I think providing housing solves *some* of the problem, but nowhere near all of it. There becomes an entrenchment mentality where lots of homeless people perceive living in a home/apartment as a form of being controlled and less free. They sometimes derogatorily call people who do so "housies". I'm all for public housing, including free housing, subsidized rent, and other things to help people get a second chance at life, but I think the piece that's missing from the "give them housing" notion is particularly, what's needed for lots of them is not just housing, but long-term mental health inpatient facilities, and even then, we still need to be mindful of those who, while not mentally ill at a level requiring inpatient care, simply will not live in homes or apartments.

The social safety net we need to provide is complex, and needs to handle everything from mainline cases of temporary unemployment and transitional unemployment, all the way through the edge cases. Centralizing homeless people does not solve the entirety of the problem by any means, but it is one piece of the overall support/safety net puzzle.
 
Xai [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2020-07-02 1:20:31 PM  
so a special walled off place - a ghetto if you will.
 
2020-07-02 1:20:57 PM  

firefly212: Alien Robot: firefly212: Ya know what, better to manage the problem than to do what lots of cities do and pretend homeless people don't exist. by designating areas, we can provide safety, security, and even send mobile healthcare vehicles to try to help people. It centralizes social services, and makes it easier to get hungry people food.

Why not simply provide housing?

Having volunteered with homeless people for a while, I think providing housing solves *some* of the problem, but nowhere near all of it. There becomes an entrenchment mentality where lots of homeless people perceive living in a home/apartment as a form of being controlled and less free. They sometimes derogatorily call people who do so "housies". I'm all for public housing, including free housing, subsidized rent, and other things to help people get a second chance at life, but I think the piece that's missing from the "give them housing" notion is particularly, what's needed for lots of them is not just housing, but long-term mental health inpatient facilities, and even then, we still need to be mindful of those who, while not mentally ill at a level requiring inpatient care, simply will not live in homes or apartments.

The social safety net we need to provide is complex, and needs to handle everything from mainline cases of temporary unemployment and transitional unemployment, all the way through the edge cases. Centralizing homeless people does not solve the entirety of the problem by any means, but it is one piece of the overall support/safety net puzzle.


Mostly they find themselves trapped in homelessness and make up reasons as to why it's their idea.  It takes emergency shelters and time to prove that plumbing and safety are preferable.
 
2020-07-02 1:22:44 PM  

HugeMistake: There are only three choices when it comes to the homeless:

1. Provide them with homes (or at least shelters)
2. Provide them with a designated area where they can make the best of being homeless, i.e. a "camp"
3. Don't designate an area and have them set up on benches, doorways, parks, or anywhere else they can find

So which one of those would you like to support?

OK, I guess there is always option 4, namely "move them along so that they become somebody else's problem for a few days until they get shoved back here" or the ever popular "if we make life unpleasant enough for them, they will magically give up being homeless", which begs the question of how much worse their situation could be...


4. Free legal drugs someplace in the middle of Death Valley, along with nutraloaf, shacks and water. They will get their on their own, no need for transport. No they can't take any with them. Yes it will cost...about 1% of the current cost of various cities 'homeless industrial complexes'. The key is 'middle of nowhere', absolutely not 'free legal drugs' in the middle of the city.

The social workers can get off the tit and get honest jobs, same as the cops.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.