Homeowner suing to stop homeless shelter

[Peeps]

It’s a pretty true assertion. Now obviously not all homeless people do that. I’m sure some don’t. But having personally had to clean feces off a store front every morning at a job I once held where homeless people would sleep under our stores awning, I can say that many do defecate on sidewalks.

I watched a special about the homeless in Los Angeles on NBC several months ago–excellent, BTW. It seems that a lack of bathrooms is forcing many of the homeless to use whatever they can find–and often, that does seem to be a public place like a sidewalk.

This is shocking to me. I don’t understand why the (well-off) citizens of LA don’t fund Porta-Potties, hundreds or even thousands of them all over the city in the populous areas (and their maintenance and cleaning, of course). Yes, it’s an expense, but I would rather pay higher taxes and give people a decent place to do their human business than force them to do it in the streets. To me, that’s the treatment that the prisoners in the Nazi concentration camps endured, and it’s cruel beyond understanding. Californians, give up a few cases of that fine California wine, or buy a smaller condo without a gorgeous view, and use the surplus money to help people pee and poop like human beings, not like animals.

If there were a “Give Them A Bathroom” Fund across the nation, I would contribute.

 

[blackforest]

I’m not quite sure what to think of this. Maybe others here on CAF are more knowledgeable about this.

I can only relay personal experience, and I haven’t yet read the other replies.

I was a social worker in a shelter for homeless families located on a quiet street in an old, established residential neighborhood. There was a huge community brouhaha when the shelter was first being proposed, but fortunately no lawsuits.

It turns out the shelter is clean and tastefully designed. The residents leave during the day for school, hanging out at the library, and (gasp!) even going to work. And, most important of all to the neighborhood, property values didn’t budge.

 

[VonDerTann]

Folks, many major cities - San Fran in particular - are so overwhelmed with the homeless defecating on the streets that residents there can download “poop apps” where people can post which streets amd exact addresses are being covered with human feces. Getting mad at me won’t make the necessity of those kinds of apps vanish.

 

[blackforest]

You could end up suffering a significant impact to your business, the same way someone who runs a restaurant or a shop doesn’t necessarily want homeless people camping all over the sidewalk outside his establishment, coming in asking to use the bathroom all day, panhandling his customers etc.

Well, that’s the other aspect. Shelter or no shelter, the homeless will be there. I’d rather there be facilities - both day shelters and overnight ones - where the homeless can reside under tasteful architecture instead of those ubiquitous tents, and where - you guessed it - they can use some indoor plumbing.

There’s a day shelter in my community that’s been wonderful. It provides showers, computer labs, regularly cleaned bathrooms, and just a place to warm up and eat a hot meal. I like that it keeps them off the street. The less sympathetic denizens like it because it keeps them out of sight, out of mind.

 

[VonDerTann]

Additionally, it’s really too easy to just say, “tax people more and solve the problem.” Taxing people more will solve nothing - the people of California are already among the highest-taxed in the US yet homelessness is completely out of control there. More taxes = more people working residents leaving and the problem grows worse. More taxes are absolutely not the answer to homelessness.

 

[phil19034]

The reason people don’t want these things in their nice neighborhood is because of the failure of state and federal government to properly address the population of mentally ill homeless people who don’t have anywhere to go except for a homeless shelter.

There is a lot of truth in what you say here. The state and federal govts all like to pretend that mentally illness among SOME homeless doesn’t exist.

Few people have problems with Church run homeless shelters because they usually SEEM very nice (whether Catholic, protestant, etc) and SEEM accept the people they are equipped to help and refers others to different facilities.

State run facilities SEEM accept people they are ill-equipped to help and pretend each facility can help everyone.

NOTE: I used the word SEEM several times because I’m acknowledging that reality might not always match public opinion.

 

[phil19034]

NIMBY is very, very common. No one wants shelters, food orgs, clinics, halfway houses, etc in their neighborhood.

Yes.

Other NIMBYs don’t want highways, supermarkets, stores, more houses, etc. It doesn’t have to be a rejection of social services. It can be protest to any kind of change to the neighborhood.

People in the town I live in had a major issue with a massage parlor moving in because it upset the historical character of the town.

 

[phil19034]

Before we go judging the homeless in this situation, let’s remember that some areas of California also have huge numbers of working poor homeless and elderly retired homeless who simply cannot find affordable housing in areas like Palo Alto. They lose their apartment somehow, end up living out of their car and having to find a place to park the car at night to sleep, preferably someplace that has restrooms and maybe showers. It’s possible that this shelter is meant to serve them, especially given the mention of a location near freeways. If those are the homeless at issue here, then the shelter might not be so bad, although efforts would also need to be made to get these people into actual housing at some point.

agreed. However, the issue with state run shelters is that rarely cater to one kind of homeless (except for having male vs female). It is typically the non-profit / church ran shelters that taylor shelters to different homeless demographics

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Well, that’s the other aspect. Shelter or no shelter, the homeless will be there.

That actually depends on whether the homeless are from your town or area, or whether the shelter is such that it’s drawing them from outside the area.
If your neighborhood happens to have a small percentage of homeless people, then what you said applies.
However, if you build some huge shelter or put in some other service that brings in a huge number of homeless people who don’t normally congregate in your area, then people aren’t necessarily going to be happy with the “magnet” drawing homeless to their area. It’s not “your homeless” that you’re serving, it’s the homeless from some other town or some other area.

 

[poche]

I would like the homeowner what better solution he has to the problem of homelessness other than “not in my backyard?”

 

[Anrakyr]

I don’t see why not. Works right now for millions.

“Are there no work houses? Are there no prisons?”

I would like the homeowner what better solution he has to the problem of homelessness other than “not in my backyard?”

Indeed.
Not to be crass but everyone wants a solution but no one wants to provide it.

• cant put the shelter downtown, you’ll make people feel unsafe.
• can’t put it near homes, you’ll drive down the value.
• cant put them at the edge of town you’d be depriving the homeless of either access to other services or the shelter itself or flooding the buses.

Where do you want them?

Bear with me here: I say make homelessness illegal. Arrest those who persist in vagrancy.

Oh we’ve come full circle again…
Yeah cause a mentally or physically ill person (which most people agree in this thread makes up the majority) really needs a criminal record on top of the steep climb to recovery assuming recovery is in the cards.

 

[vz71]

Where do you want them?

How about next to a police station?
That way we can take care of the homeless without increase of crime that inevitably comes with it.

 

[Anrakyr]

Or how about we eradicate poverty, care for the disabled and mentally ill and provide affordable housing?

 

[Peeps]

There’s a day shelter in my community that’s been wonderful. It provides showers, computer labs, regularly cleaned bathrooms, and just a place to warm up and eat a hot meal. I like that it keeps them off the street. The less sympathetic denizens like it because it keeps them out of sight, out of mind.

We have several options for the homeless in our city, including church based and secular based. Just last week during the ice/snow storm, a new shelter opened in a downtown church that is specifically intended for those homeless who are not accepted at other shelters (e.g., addicts, sex offenders, untreated mentally-ill). I admire this church for their willingness to take on this task, but I do hope that they are staffed with professionals who know how to take care of these people with extraordinary needs and issues. I have to think that they know what they’re doing down there and have made sure that everything they are doing is legal (e.g., there are restrictions for convicted sex offenders).

I think that California has a much larger population of homeless than many of us because of their gorgeous warm weather. If you’re going to be homeless, better to be in L.A. than Northern Illinois in January!

We just went through a serious snow/ice storm this weekend (our hospital E.R. was filled with people with broken bones acquired from falling on the ice, including the ice in our hospital parking lot!!), and all of our local shelters were well-used by our itinerant population of homeless!

From what I understand, in our city, most of the homeless are known by name by our local law enforcement officers, mental health professionals, downtown pastors and priests, and homeless social workers (including several individuals who run charitable programs for the homeless out of storefronts or their homes). The ones who are likely to be a danger to themselves and possibly others are known and watched carefully. The harmless homeless are watched to make sure that they stay safe–homeless people are easy victims for gangs and criminals. Also, sometimes homeless people who refuse to go inside a building are at risk of freezing their extremities, so the cops and others make the rounds of the popular homeless hangouts (e.g. under bridges, in stairwells, etc.) to make sure they are safe and have warm coverings on their hands, feet, and heads).

But I’m guessing that the population of the homeless in L.A. is so large that many of the homeless are just nameless people to those who are in a position to help them.

I honestly think most people who are homeless in our area of the country are either mentally-ill or addicted, and therefore deserving of pity and help rather than scorn.

 

[Peeps]

But I wonder if perhaps a large number of the homeless in L.A. are regular folks who were doing well enough, but then lost a job or perhaps suffered a financial or health setback that took away all their resources, and they simply have not been able to get back on their feet again. A health setback can be devastating to someone who lost their job because they couldn’t do it anymore due to bad health.

There should be relatives who would step in and help them, but it’s very possible that many of the homeless have no living relatives who are able to help them–I only have two living relatives in my family line, and one of them is in his 80s! (Thankfully my brother is only 60 and would help me in a minute!)

A lot of people in the 1960s and 1970s had only one or two children, and that means a much smaller family group and therefore not as many relatives who are able to step up and help a relative who is in trouble financially.

That special on NBC about homeless in L.A. said that many of the homeless ARE people who are employed and were doing O.K., but then the cost of living in L.A. got to be too high (especially housing), and they started living out of their cars, and then eventually became homeless, even though they still have jobs!!

I would move out of that city! There are plenty of cheaper places to live in the U.S. that have decent weather (e.g., Texas!). Does anyone think it would work if cities with needs for more people would advertise, and help working homeless to move to their city; e.g. , paying their moving expenses and six months of rent in a small apartment so that they have time to get settled and look for a permanent home?

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

The United States of America has such an abundance of wealth. It is a sad statement that there are so many people who do not have a decent place to sleep every night. We need more money for housing, and more money to care for those who cannot, for whatever the reason, take care of themselves.

 

[TheLittleLady]

In my part of the country, southern US, we see homelessness that is:

Addiction has driven friends and family away. These folks can only go to one specific shelter that specializes in addiction, other shelters allow no drugs or alcohol use and test for it.

Others are homeless because their parents kicked them out. Some because their spouse/partner was the breadwinner and left.

Homeless after a cascade of events. (This town has a boom in service and construction related jobs, a big Casino is opening, rental prices and availability is dramatically different than it was even 3 years ago) Living paycheck to paycheck, loss of a job or a major medical problem has them evicted. In order to get into a new place they need 1st and last month, deposit and proof of income. Deposits to turn on the gas and electricity and water, it can cost a couple grand to move into a $500 per month, bad side of the tracks, rental.

Car was lost when payments could not be met, so, there is also the transportation issue. Bus service is 5 days per week, and only runs from 7 AM to 7 PM, so, night/weekend availability is important for service industry jobs. If someone keeps a car, they are living in it.

A number of shelters are only open at night, during the day people must leave. This is when you see folks congregating and loitering. How much better if during the day they could sleep (while working a night job and saving up to get a place) or have classes, resources, counseling?

Homelessness is not simple.

 

[Asinner]

I was thinking of just this. Addicts and the mentally ill make up quite a bit of the homeless population.

For those addicted to illegal drugs, maybe the laws need to be changed so that the sentence for possession or using is compulsory rehab. Then aggressively police and prosecute the homeless for drugs to get them in rehab as much as possible.

I believe it’s unconstitutional to commit people to involuntary mental health treatment simply for being mentally ill, so the only thing to do is to aggressively police and prosecute the homeless for the various petty crimes they commit. Then, instead of pleading them out, evaluate them for mental illness so the can be found not guilty and then be committed to a mental institution.

My plan would require a lot of willpower that I don’t think any major city has, so there’s no real danger of it actually being put to use.

 

[blackforest]

That actually depends on whether the homeless are from your town or area, or whether the shelter is such that it’s drawing them from outside the area.

In order to receive grants to open a shelter, you have to prove to the grantor that there’s a need for the service. Nobody is going to fund you if your application indicates, “There’s no homeless population around here but - what the heck? - let’s open a shelter, anyway.” Also, the shelter should be located in the immediate area of the homeless because transportation is expensive for them; it’s no longer possible to “dodge the bulls” and “ride the rails,” and hitch-hiking is much more frowned upon these days.

I think that California has a much larger population of homeless than many of us because of their gorgeous warm weather. If you’re going to be homeless, better to be in L.A. than Northern Illinois in January!

It’s an interesting thought, but as I mentioned, with transportation costs, the homeless can’t get around as easily as we might think. Also, Portland, Seattle, and Chicago have no shortage of homeless people, and I don’t consider any of those cities an oasis of fine weather, particularly in winter! Here’s a better explanation for California’s homeless problem. What Is Contributing to California’s Homelessness?| National Catholic Register

Does anyone think it would work if cities with needs for more people would advertise, and help working homeless to move to their city; e.g. , paying their moving expenses and six months of rent in a small apartment so that they have time to get settled and look for a permanent home?

Interesting idea. Portland tried something similar by paying their bus fairs to leave the city and return to their home towns and families. I haven’t heard any follow-up as to whether the program worked, or whether they’re still homeless and now some other town’s problem. There was no funding from the host cities for them.

I believe it’s unconstitutional to commit people to involuntary mental health treatment simply for being mentally ill, so the only thing to do is to aggressively police and prosecute the homeless for the various petty crimes they commit.

I recently read that Kennedy, (Johnson? I think Kennedy), enacted a well-intentioned but backfiring initiative to de-institutionalize the mentally ill and intellectually disabled so as to enable them to thrive in society with the rest of us.

Unfortunately, there was not enough of a safety net for them, causing the high percentage of mentally ill homeless people that we have to this day. I’d rather not see them go back to those horrible “homes” of the yesteryear. But without both a support circle, (e.g. family, friends, churches) and adequate social programs, (e.g. vocational support, occupational therapy, affordable out-patient mental health and psychiatric treatment), they’re left floundering on the streets. It’s really sad all around.

 

[Maelstrom1]

Burden? You mean like autistic children and old people? People who don’t pull their weight sounds much more Darwinism than Christian.