Lol. In a depressing way.

[ironman1315]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5122048-155/gehrke-what-would-the-guy-who

What a joke people of Utah.

[Tony (admin)]

Well maybe that dude should lead the way, and take some homeless people into his home.  You know, see how well it works.

[zeous]

But he’s soooo righteous to gas light others, what a champion of the homeless he is!

Nevermind questions like what is the root cause of there being so many homeless right now, why is the “solution” what it is, where is the proof that more shelters will do anything other than create more pockets of crime and violence, who stands to profit on the construction of homeless shelters, who owns the property surrounding the various sites, when did they buy it, what other things are in the mix with this “solution”?

You know, uninteresting questions.

[ironman1315]

Because giving homeless women and families a place to stay is such a bad thing. Particularly since a number of these women are homeless because of abuse.

And where is he asking people to take the homeless into the persons home? By Geneva rock yes. But not their home.

Also the homeless families, from what I gather, avoid downtown because of the crime problem caused by a small segment of the homeless population, single males.

[zeous]

Missed the point.  Why are there so many?  What is the root cause?  Building permanent housing for them only signals more are expected permanently.  Why.  That is not a solution.

Don’t try to weaponize my empathy against me.  I’ll not fall for that schtick.

[ironman1315]

You’re right permanent housing isn’t a solution. But the Draper location wasn’t permanent housing. It was temporary.

As for the source of homelessness in sure it’s the same as always, people can’t afford it fir one reason or another.

Side note: studies have been done that show giving the homeless housing is cheaper in the long run than letting them just stay homeless.

[ironman1315]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43692537&nid=148&title=man-understands-plight-of-homeless-and-says-somebody-has-to-speak-up

We shouldn’t help this guy either because he’s clearly an ass hole that’s trying to live off the gubmint.

[zeous]

So help him.  Take your wallet down, after hitting the ATM, and help him with your own resources in whichever way you see fit.  You are a good enough person to do that, aren’t you?

[ironman1315]

Yeah, if I had that kind of disposable income. But I don’t. But as a community we can pool limited resources and do more than just one of us.

You’re arguments are fallacious.

[zeous]

No, they’re not.  Identify the fallacy and support that claim. You don’t get it for free.

Voluntary cooperation is a valid argument and the only one that works long-term.  If you don’t have the monetary resources on your own, start a non-profit and give your time and effort, or join an existing one. 

Tax-and-spend is non-voluntary and funneled through a system where lots of people don’t give a s**t about anyone they “serve”, but do care about taxing more and spending more through their buddies’ businesses.  Voluntarily, you could shop around and get the best bang for your buck.

Your turn.

[ironman1315]

The fallacy is that you’re telling me I should do something like make a note non-profit or take a man into my home while stating I think the community needs to step up and do something. That’s a fallacious argument. I can do my part but my part on it’s own is insignificant. I don’t have the resources to set up an NPO. I need to get my own finances in order so that I can donate when I’m in a better position.

You say voluntary action is the only way to have long term success. But just look at the NIMBYISM all across the valley. Look st this chronic problem and tell me we’re volunteering enough? And tell me your solution is working. It isn’t. We as a people need to help the homeless. And if we won’t do it on our own then the government has a duty to do so since the sovereign people abdicated on that responsibility.

[zeous]

Okay now we’re getting somewhere interesting.  First, what does the word “fallacious” mean to you?

Second, what is NIMBYISM?

Third, are you arguing that voluntary action is a “fallacious” idea because problems exist?  That’s what it sounds like when you say “Look st this chronic problem and tell me we’re volunteering enough? And tell me your solution is working.”

Fourth, if in your mind the existence of a problem in any degree simultaneus to attempts to alleviate said problem is evidence that said attempts are invalid or “fallacious”, then how can you argue that government is a non-“fallacious” or valid one?  Because,  you know, goverment already does tax and spend on the homeless problem.  Yet the problem still exists and is worse than ever.

But anyway, you are the one who wants to help the homeless.  So you taking action is perfectly logical.  Your “solution” is to get other people to do it even if they don’t want to, by tax-and-spend, and use guilt and play on their emotions to go along with the racket.  How about organizing the homeless people to build their own community with the limited resources the non-profit of your choosing has?  All you are doing is evading your own responsibility and demonstrating that you really don’t want to actually help. 

Homelessness is a social problem, certainly, but it won’t go away by taxing the s**t out of working people and creating more homeless by making life unaffordable.  If you’re interested in a quality economic analysis from a 19th century American economist, check out Henry George’s “Progress and Poverty”. 

[AZswayze]

Here ya go

[Daedalus]

Nice. Since I recently invoked that phrase I really feel the need to point out that there is no acronym in ISM. It should be NIMBYism. 

[AZswayze]

Yeah, but Zeous is smart enough to have figured that out once the google results populated (there’s even one for NIMBYISM just below the first result).

[Daedalus]

LMGTFY is a godsend for the sardonic.

[AZswayze]

I haven’t used it in forever, but I couldn’t resist, considering Zeous’ penchant for calling others on their critical thinking skills.

[ironman1315]

I blame my phone’s auto-correct.

[zeous]

Haha touche

[UteThunder]

The joke here is the idea that spreading the homeless population around the valley is going to somehow help the homeless.

This plan seems to be nothing more than an effort to reduce crime in downtown SLC by reducing the homeless population residing in downtown SLC. In other words, they want to spread the crime around the valley, which sounds great for SLC, not so great for the rest of the county.

People who are against having a homeless shelter built in their neighborhood aren’t necessarily against helping the homeless, they are against the accompanying crime associated with having them in their area. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[ironman1315]

Where does the crime come from? Single males. Families of homeless people generally don’t commit crimes. Nor increase the crime rate. And a shelter for homeless women and children would not likely increase the crime rate.

[UteThunder]

While I will concede that males are generally more likely to be the ones who commit crimes, I’m not so naive as to believe this fairy tale that homeless women and children are all good, honest people who have simply fallen on hard times but would never break the law. There is a very high percentage of homeless women who commit crimes just like the men. And homeless children aren’t all automatically angels by default of their youth.

Bottomline: If you have a large enough number of homeless people, you are going to have crime to go along with them regardless of gender, marital status, or age.  

 

[AZswayze]

I don’t know about the homeless committing more crimes (at least not violent), but roughly 25-35% are addicts, so the drug trade tends to be highly prevalent in areas where the homeless congregate. This is not an argument against homeless shelters, by the way. Seeing as nearly 50% of the homeless population is either severely mentally ill, or on drugs I believe there’s a better solution than shelters for these folks, BUT I also realize resources are limited and tossing people with such issues on the street is pretty f**king cold.

[Daedalus]

I’m about 100% sure that it’s not about “spreading crime”, but that it’s about “Rich people want to buy the land that the homeless shelter is on, and lease it to shops/restaurants because it’s close to Gateway.”

[Tony (admin)]

Can’t find a link but I’ve heard there are studies that show the homeless congregate in the center of metropolitan areas, regardless of where the shelters are.  They’ll go out to the shelter to get food and such, but go back to the center of the city to do whatever they do.

[Daedalus]

This has been my argument too on this topic (I did not spend the time to find research to back it up). What are you going to do, bus them to other cities? Won’t they walk/hitchhike back to where the resources are consolidated? Seriously, some enterprising journalist needs to chase down where the $$$ motivation comes from and no doubt it is from Downtown businesses. 

[AZswayze]

NVM

[Daedalus]

OK.