Would you be willing to accept low income and homeless housing on your neighborhood?

You can't give birth unless you're pregnant, and you can't be 'forced' to be pregnant (unless you're raped).

 

not so sure, prohibition of alcohol was bad too, the reality is, the abuse exists legal or not, just prohibition makes criminals of those that do not abuse

I have known people that handled drugs fine, including myself during my teen years, others that have not

same is true with alcohol, some can't handle it, many can


"5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results" April 7, 2009

]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

"Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/


drug and alcohol addicts are a problem, with or without prohibition....

 

yes, we should not force rape victims to have their rapists babies, agreed, they should be allowed to have abortions

 

We don't DO anything. We just start removing their privileges - exactly as we do with naughty children. If we won't be resonsible for our fellows, then we can expect this stuff to encroach upon our doorsteps.

Which in turn addresses cost. It's not cheaper to just keep throwing money and resources at them - because it produces ever more of the same behaviour. The cost of failing to take responsibility is therefore ultimately immense. AND it ensures the affected individuals (both current and future) have no hope of taking control of their lives. It's a ****ing terrible approach, to be frank. Seriously cruel.

 

They would if their goal was to expand the underclass by chosing 'solutions' which create more of the same.

 

They won't grow food unless it's mandatory in exchange for housing. Giving them a field and a shovel will see exactly nothing happen. These are people who can't even motivate themselves to stand upright during daylight hours - they're not suddenly going to turn Amish because they have access to a plot of dirt.

 

That's the problem with so many bleeding hearts who think the homeless are simply decent folk, down on their luck through no fault of their own. It's either profound naivety, or it's a deliberate preference for an easy target - and thus cheap and easy virtue points.

 

I personally wouldn’t want the crime that typically comes with low income housing.

 

So you agree that no one is forced to be pregnant unless raped. Good, you're making progress!

Now, let's return to the topic of public housing.

 

yep, and rape victims should be allowed to get abortions

Good, we're making progress!

Now, let's return to the topic of public housing.

 

I am not against it being mandatory for the better units,thst they have to sign up for and attend the chore list.

 

I couldn't answer your poll because I see a difference between "low income" and "homeless".

I wouldn't mind low-income apartments or duplexes for law-abiding, working people in my area.

But most of the homeless are deeply mentally ill or addicted to hard drugs.

I think the profoundly mentally ill should be housed in caring, humane state facilities. I think the answer to drug addicted homeless people is to convict them for drug possession and incarcerate them in a combination jail/drug rehabilitation facility that is used for that purpose only. I see this not as being cruel. I see this as saving their lives.

If we did these things, we would probably reduce homelessness by 90% if not more.

 

This doesn't specific what the housing consists of beyond nondescript references to "poor" housing.

 

1) It doesn't matter what they do after choosing to forfeit benefits for their drug of choice. Their freely made choice is none of our business.

2) They will have to live within the law either way, just like everyone else. If they do crime, they'll be prosecuted and locked up to detox the hard way. It's going to happen either way .. and that's the entire point of the exercise. To see fewer people living in that condition, and fewer people choosing that condition in future.

 

Exactly my point. I've worked in the 'industry', and I know the reality.

Homelessness (and all the things which lead to it in the First World) is a choice. Since it IS a choice, you can't fix it with materials. You can, however, fix it with removal of materials. People who intend to survive will choose life, and that's what we want to foster.

 

On the contrary, it's cruel NOT to do things like this. Anyone who condemns a 90% improvement (and it would likely be that high) shows you their real motives .. and it's not to help and prevent. It's cheap virtue points on the backs of easy targets.

 

If we care about these people at all, we have to make it universally mandatory. They need the hard lesson they've missed in childhood. They need that much love, to reach equilibrium. They need to know their lives are SO important that others are prepared to fight alongside them to get out of bed every day and meet obligations.

 

Have you ever seen “Seattle Is Dying”? It’s an hour long and can be seen on YouTube. It’s very well done. This involuntary intervention is the answer they arrive at.

 

Oh that's going straight to my playlist - thank you! Will watch tonight. Glad they figured it out, as per your overview. Give it any more than a cursory consideration, and that's the only conclusion you can reach.

 

Oh hell yes. Do you have any? Send them by QUICK

SOMEBODY has to replace my next door neighbors. Worst, ****** redneck deadbeats that god ever cursed a landlord with.

People that fly the Swastika over the Stars and Bars are rarely credits to the neighborhood Association.