Social Can homeless people be fined for sleeping outside? A rural Oregon city asks the US Supreme Court

[Sinister]

Dunno man, knowing the junkies where i live if you give them housing they would probably strip it from wiring and plumbing in order to sell it for scrap to get more drugs.

I think there ought to bring back asylums of some sort.

Junkies? I thought we were talking about mentally ill people. The two arent always synonymous. Although I've personally seen someone who has that same condition lose access to their medication, the downward spiral is pretty alarming.

But I do agree with there needing to be asylums. Just not the torture chambers that used to exist within them which gave justification for getting rid of them

 

[Rod1]

Junkies? I thought we were talking about mentally ill people. The two arent always synonymous. Although I've personally seen someone who has that same condition lose access to their medication, the downward spiral is pretty alarming.

They almost always come hand to hand. (i mean severe mental illness that leads to homelesness).

 

[Sinister]

They almost always come hand to hand. (i mean severe mental illness that leads to homelesness).

I think they are inter-mingled, but not always synonymous. Some with mental disorders do self-medicate, some loathe being on medication.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Aren't most homeless just fucked in the head though?

Affordable housing would probably do shit to save Fried Brain Mike whose grey matter can't function properly due to drug abuse.

The most visible homeless are very disproportionately dealing with mental-health issues, but they aren't the majority. Lots of homeless people are couch-surfing, leaving in their cars, and otherwise not very obvious. Housing costs are by far the No. 1 factor in total homeless rates, and reducing the total homeless population and lowering housing costs makes it easier to deal with the very hard cases.

 

[AWilder]

The best part is if either of you muppets had the good sense just to leave the thread the first time you were corrected you wouldn't have ran face first into a brick wall of wrongness half a dozen more times. We'll call it the sunk cost fantasticness. It's so sweet.

LOL. God, the salt is the best. It really doesn't get any better than this.

 

[Lucas1980]

Bring Back Mental Asylums and enforce existing laws...

 

[avenue94]

It's presumed that they would be moved out of homelessness--even if that means jail.

Which would be comically impracticable and likely raise constitutional problems.

 

[Madmick]

Or because what's left to post?

Cliffs:

• The "Portland Metro" aka Oregon Regional Government doesn't serve a population of 2.5m-- that's for the Portland federally designated MSA. Nor is its population 2m. They screwed this up twice.
  
  
• The $1.7bn figure in expenditures from 2015-2023 I quoted was solely for the City of Portland. Again, this is not a pooled budget, and distinct from the Metro revenue collection division.
  
  
• Furthermore, the 65% homeless population increase I cited doesn't refer to the homeless population under their wider Metro (that would be a tri-county PIT, and a larger number of homeless). Yet again, they are whining about my figures not accounting for the size of the Metro, but none of the figures in the quote he originally nitpicked were describing the Metro.
  
  
• The "Homeless Service Tax" (he explicitly invoked verbatim), aka the Supportive Housing Service Tax, the SHS, Measure 26-210, wasn't passed by voters until 2020, and didn't go into effect until 2021. The Metro existing prior to that is irrelevant to the fact that Captain Can'tEvenBeRightWithHindsight referenced a tax & service policy that didn't exist until after the date range of the city spending I originally mentioned that he was ignorantly criticizing as a Metro service. The figure wasn't a Metro one, nor drawn from Metro funds, as their own Commissioner pointed out in his tweet, but the most embarrassing part was Stinky Pete didn't even know the origin of the specific tax he projected onto that date range in his failed critique. I even pointed this out before producing the Tweet, and he still stepped on that rake. You can see this plainly in the fiscal budget. There is zero Metro homeless service supportive housing spending present until FY 2022:
  
  https://www.portland.gov/cbo/2023-2024-budget/documents/joint-office-homeless-services-fy-2023-24/download
  
  
• Homeless services within the city budget only make up a small portion of the overall total spending I highlighted when I quoted that specific figure demonstrating how great Portland's supportive housing spending was strictly within its city budget in the context of its small city population. As I highlighted in my original post, there was broader spending over the past two decades to assist the homeless, of course that didn't start in 2020, but the specific comment they nitpicked focused solely on the city of Portland, and Multnomah homeless. They lectured and lectured how it was actually for the Metro...and they were wrong.

 

[AWilder]

Or because what's left to post?

Cliffs:

• The "Portland Metro" aka Oregon Regional Government doesn't serve a population of 2.5m-- that's for the Portland federally designated MSA. Nor is its population 2m. They screwed this up twice.
  
  
• The $1.7bn figure in expenditures from 2015-2023 I quoted was solely for the City of Portland. Again, this is not a pooled budget, and distinct from the Metro revenue collection division.
  
  
• Furthermore, the 65% homeless population increase I cited doesn't refer to the homeless population under their wider Metro (that would be a tri-county PIT, and a larger number of homeless). Yet again, they are whining about my figures not accounting for the size of the Metro, but none of the figures in the quote he originally nitpicked were describing the Metro.
  
  
• The "Homeless Service Tax" (he explicitly invoked verbatim), aka the Supportive Housing Service Tax, the SHS, Measure 26-210, wasn't passed by voters until 2020, and didn't go into effect until 2021. The Metro existing prior to that is irrelevant to the fact that Captain Can'tEvenBeRightWithHindsight referenced a tax & service policy that didn't exist until after the date range of the city spending I originally mentioned that he was ignorantly criticizing as a Metro service. The figure wasn't a Metro one, nor drawn from Metro funds, as their own Commissioner pointed out in his tweet, but the most embarrassing part was Stinky Pete didn't even know the origin of the specific tax he projected onto that date range in his failed critique. I even pointed this out before producing the Tweet, and he still stepped on that rake. You can see this plainly in the fiscal budget. There is zero Metro homeless service supportive housing spending present until FY 2022:
  
  https://www.portland.gov/cbo/2023-2024-budget/documents/joint-office-homeless-services-fy-2023-24/download
  
  
• Homeless services within the city budget only make up a small portion of the overall total spending I highlighted when I quoted that specific figure demonstrating how great Portland's supportive housing spending was strictly within its city budget in the context of its small city population. As I highlighted in my original post, there was broader spending over the past two decades to assist the homeless, of course that didn't start in 2020, but the specific comment they nitpicked focused solely on the city of Portland, and Multnomah homeless. They lectured and lectured how it was actually for the Metro...and they were wrong.

lol, but you were wrong and talking out of your ass. That's why everyone is laughing at you.

 

[Madmick]

lol, but you were wrong and talking out of your ass. That's why everyone is laughing at you.

And this is why I GIF. You can't help stupid.

 

[AWilder]

And this is why I GIF. You can't help stupid.

you could just cry and delete all the posts mocking you as you normally do.

 

[Madmick]

you could just cry and delete all the posts mocking you as you normally do.

 

[AWilder]

lmao, you're the redhead, everyone else is cartman. go delete the posts now little sad man.

 

[Madmick]

lmao, you're the redhead, everyone else is cartman. go delete the posts now little sad man.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Or because what's left to post?

Cliffs:

• The "Portland Metro" aka Oregon Regional Government doesn't serve a population of 2.5m-- that's for the Portland federally designated MSA. Nor is its population 2m. They screwed this up twice.
  
  
• The $1.7bn figure in expenditures from 2015-2023 I quoted was solely for the City of Portland. Again, this is not a pooled budget, and distinct from the Metro revenue collection division.
  
  
• Furthermore, the 65% homeless population increase I cited doesn't refer to the homeless population under their wider Metro (that would be a tri-county PIT, and a larger number of homeless). Yet again, they are whining about my figures not accounting for the size of the Metro, but none of the figures in the quote he originally nitpicked were describing the Metro.
  
  
• The "Homeless Service Tax" (he explicitly invoked verbatim), aka the Supportive Housing Service Tax, the SHS, Measure 26-210, wasn't passed by voters until 2020, and didn't go into effect until 2021. The Metro existing prior to that is irrelevant to the fact that Captain Can'tEvenBeRightWithHindsight referenced a tax & service policy that didn't exist until after the date range of the city spending I originally mentioned that he was ignorantly criticizing as a Metro service. The figure wasn't a Metro one, nor drawn from Metro funds, as their own Commissioner pointed out in his tweet, but the most embarrassing part was Stinky Pete didn't even know the origin of the specific tax he projected onto that date range in his failed critique. I even pointed this out before producing the Tweet, and he still stepped on that rake. You can see this plainly in the fiscal budget. There is zero Metro homeless service supportive housing spending present until FY 2022:
  
  https://www.portland.gov/cbo/2023-2024-budget/documents/joint-office-homeless-services-fy-2023-24/download
  
  
• Homeless services within the city budget only make up a small portion of the overall total spending I highlighted when I quoted that specific figure demonstrating how great Portland's supportive housing spending was strictly within its city budget in the context of its small city population. As I highlighted in my original post, there was broader spending over the past two decades to assist the homeless, of course that didn't start in 2020, but the specific comment they nitpicked focused solely on the city of Portland, and Multnomah homeless. They lectured and lectured how it was actually for the Metro...and they were wrong.

Mick, you literally linked to a Metro housing bond during your original whine fest lmao

 

[AWilder]

im not the one imagining dicks in people's mouths, but nice try.

You know Mick's lost when he claims he won (he didn't, he got thoroughly dragged) and resorts to nonstop gif posting

 

[AWilder]

Mick, you literally linked to a Metro housing bond during your original whine fest lmao

i can't imagine being the type of person who can't handle making a mistake. I mean, i guess if i was constantly making stupid remarks on a forum i moderate i could go back and delete everything that demonstrates how thoroughly retarded i am, but i'm not mick.

what are the odds he deletes all this?

 

[Madmick]

im not the one imagining dicks in people's mouths, but nice try.

You know Mick's lost when he claims he won (he didn't, he got thoroughly dragged) and resorts to nonstop gif posting

 

[Madmick]

Mick, you literally linked to a Metro housing bond during your original whine fest lmao

The bond link had nothing to do with the citation of the Portland's $1.7b expenditure from 2015-2023.

Are you contradicting this?

 

[Limbo Pete]

i can't imagine being the type of person who can't handle making a mistake. I mean, i guess if i was constantly making stupid remarks on a forum i moderate i could go back and delete everything that demonstrates how thoroughly retarded i am, but i'm not mick.

what are the odds he deletes all this?

"Dude, you shit your pants."
"No, I shit my pants on PURPOSE!"