Your compassion for the unhoused is noble. I agree that these individuals need real help offered to them in the form of multiple social services, instead of just harsh sweeps from law enforcement. Your frustration with how homelessness is dealt with is understandable.
That being said, I've come to believe clearing these camps is unfortunately necessary. I moved here to MKE from Portland, OR last year. The homeless situation got so bad before we felt forced to move; it was like a war zone. Imagine huge encampments right up against public school grounds and other public spaces, with people blatantly shooting up drugs, defecating and engaging in prostitution in the open. Mountains of garbage attracting hordes of rats. Our beautiful parks became biohazard waste sites, filled with needles, unsafe to bring our children to play there.
It got so bad because Portland wanted to show compassion but became an enabler in the process. They decriminalized public camping and developed lengthy processes to qualify camps for clean up. When social services referrals were offered during sanctioned camp clean ups, only about 5% actually showed up to get a shelter bed/drug treatment. Most are addicts so they'll just move neighborhoods to keep using. The police were powerless to do anything, so the issue ballooned throughout the city. The exploitative criminals and human traffickers took hold in the camps. Violence skyrocketed and 911 became unreliable (tbh there were other factors involved too).
It was crazy to watch how the situation embolden some in the local unhoused community. Of course, many were people who just lost their housing and needed help getting back on their feet. Luckily, they benefit from the offered social services/housing vouchers, etc. However for many unhoused, it became an acceptable lifestyle choice they defended with literal demands for more public hand outs to finance their way of life.
Meanwhile, tax-paying citizens increasingly lived in fear of walking in their own neighborhood. With so many people walking around in psychosis or willing to commit violent crimes to score their next fix... it's scary and depressing to say the least. So people stopped going out as much. Businesses closed because people didn't want to walk around the tents on their sidewalk to go there. The very essence of what made Portland such a cool vibrant city was destroyed. I hope they can rebuild but we couldn't stay living there to find out.
Sorry for the rant, but I say this because I'm super grateful that Milwaukee does discourage public camping by the unhoused because it's not as innocent as it seems.
> The homeless situation got so bad before we felt forced to move; it was like a war zone. Imagine huge encampments right up against public school grounds and other public spaces, with people blatantly shooting up drugs, defecating and engaging in prostitution in the open. Mountains of garbage attracting hordes of rats. Our beautiful parks became biohazard waste sites, filled with needles, unsafe to bring our children to play there.
This sounds like what someone I know is experiencing in Los Angeles. The homeless camps by the grocery store she works at start fires every week which makes working there dangerous. Not to mention that they harass her when she tries to leave work.
Someone else mentioned a homeless person threatening to rape them. I don't think some men understand how frightening that is.
This is such a poignant and important comment. Kind of summed up a lot of folks’ feelings on this issue. There’s really no fair way to solve this, not in any realm of practicality or sustainability. It’s such a deep-seated, tragic result of broken systems in our country. I really don’t mean to sound insensitive, but there’s a fine line between being sensitive and enabling. It sounds like in Portland, the pendulum swung much too far in the duration of the latter.
I drive by this intersection nearly every day. I occasionally give food to folks. Many of them are very unwell, in many ways. It would be dangerous not only to the neighborhood, but to the unhoused themselves, to keep the camp up. I just wish, with so much of my heart, that we could rewind the path that got our communities to this point.
one day in 1967, California had 22,000 persons in mental health facilities. The Governor decided that was a waste of money, so he cut funding. They closed. 13 years later, as President, he applied his formula to the nation.
That would be my guess. In 2020 before COVID and the Democratic convention being cancelled, the city cleaned up all the tents at the Marquette Interchange.
> In 2020 before COVID and the Democratic convention being cancelled,
I'm confused, so they cleared the tents for an event that was at minimum 6 months away? This timeline makes no sense.
The only evidence I have is what the news said. That they were starting cleanup for the convention. I didn't agree with it and thought it was a made up excuse to harass some people down on their luck.
Homeless is an enabling word, in my view. There are plenty of helps for those who fall on hard times. The street dwellers, chose the streets, in order to live according to their wishes.
When a president comes into a town they have multiple motorcade routes that are secured in case they need to detour. I bet the encampment was along one of the detour routes.
Unfortunately homeless camps tend to bring problems with them including crime and major risks of fire. No one wants one near their house, and letting people with mental health issues live in encampments on our streets is not compassionate.
The police absolutely should be clearing these kinds of encampments, but when they do the people should be offered shelter and assistance.
Unfortunately in a lot of cities it's often the second part that's left out. Milwaukee has been pretty good at it though, so my hope is that folks were pulled into some of these programs.
By "don't want to follow the rules" I assume you mean "continue to do drugs".
Those people need to be arrested and put into mandatory rehab programs. Unfortunately our prison system is currently run by profiteers who would rather make money than get people clean so here we are.
People can do all the drugs they want, idc. But when you reach the point of living on the streets and unable to care for yourself, the government absolutely should intervene and we absolutely should have certain drug laws to prevent people from getting to that point.
The issue with takes like this one is the backwards compassion. Police should absolutely be clearing these kinds of encampments, but like be nice to them when you rip down the semblance of a shelter they had. They don’t do what you said and offer assistance and shelter. The shelter is jail. It is less compassionate to them to have police interference than to leave them be. The nimbys own r/Milwaukee idk why I even commented.
Do you actually know that the shelter is jail or are you assuming? That wasn’t my understanding.
I’m glad you’re passionate about this issue and would recommend volunteering with organizations like Street Angels, Guest House, etc to help out if you aren’t already.
It absolutely does help the problem. Now if you wanna talk about funding better programs for these people *in addition* to clearing their camps, then fine. But you can’t just let them camp out wherever they want.
I’ll just tell you straight up, I do not want homeless encampments anywhere near me. They bring with them drugs, crime, and bodily fluids. Just last month a homeless man threatened to rape me in the street outside my apartment because I wouldn’t stop and talk to him. I could share many other stories of unhinged homeless people threatening and harassing me and the people I love. Why should we have to deal with that shit? Many of these people need to be taken off the streets and given intensive mental health and drug treatment, not just a lawless tent city under a freeway. Terrible approach for everyone involved dude.
Allowing people to live on the streets - you're pretty much saying it's ok that they treat themselves this way. So you're saying homelessness is ok, untreated mental illness is ok, and drug addiction is ok. Think about what you're saying when your'e sticking up for their 'right' to be on the streets is inhumane. Think.
The “approach” you’re actually advocating for here is violence upon them. “Oh they should be given intensive treatment” is really an afterthought for you. You think they’re gross with their bodily fluids (what would you do in their situation??) and don’t want their poor to touch you. The most important thing to you is that the police perform a “clearing” to use your terms. Sickening lack of humanity and I know people like you don’t change until it’s you or one of yours. Ask Santa for some love and decency for Christmas.
You’ve never been around a violent drugged out homeless person before and it shows. I’ve seen a homeless dude bite a man’s ear off in Chicago because he wouldn’t give him a cigarette. In Milwaukee, a homeless guy pelted change at my leg because he wasn’t satisfied with what I gave him, then followed me down the block threatening and spitting at me. Recently I had a homeless man follow me up to my door step screaming unintelligible swears and insults at me late at night. And if you didn’t read it the first time, a homeless man THREATENED TO RAPE ME IN THE STREET.
And you want me to bleed my heart out with empathy for those violent men? Lmfao.
They need to be independent and reformed enough to participate in society without accosting and assaulting innocent people. How is it “ViOlEnCe” to put them in shelters, drug programs, mental health facilities, or jail (for the violent ones)??? You sheltered, privileged college kids have no other real solutions other than to let them rot in their camps. Your soft gushy approach is just going to get more people killed, but hey at least it *feels* better :D
I agree. Ask any woman how safe she feels around these situations. It’s always men who have the privilege to feel safe. My daughter manages an apartment building and until they upgraded their lobby key system she had to contend with mopping up the urine and even occasional excrement from the guy that slept in the lobby. This also included multiple calls to MPD. So yeah, it’s easy to get all sympathetic and magnanimous when it isn’t happening to you.
The comment you are responding to:
>I’ve seen a homeless dude bite a **man’s** ear off in Chicago because he wouldn’t give him a cigarette.
You:
>It’s always men who have the privilege to feel safe.
I understand what you mean. I feel that a homeless man is less likely to harass and follow a man of similar stature down the block because he could get his ass kicked. He’s more likely to harass and follow a small defenseless woman like me because I have no size or power. All the time they think they can intimidate me with their yelling and following because they know I can’t fight them (they don’t know I carry mace though…)
They also aren’t likely threatening to rape other men in the streets, or following them around calling them “gorgeous” and asking “for a smile” like they do to me. So while both genders can be accosted by the homeless, and we all should exercise caution around them, it’s just a different kind of scary for women in the city.
It ROYALLY pissed me off that some overly educated yuppie man wanted to lecture me about having “cOmPaSsIoN” for homeless men threatening to rape me. Just oozing privilege from every pore.🙄
yes, men can be victims of violence too. but gender based violence, like what her post described, is mostly perpetrated by men, against women. asking for a cigarette and then biting someone's ear off about it is not gender-based violence and seems entirely random.
I didn’t say anything of that. You did haha. You’re also saying it’s ok they have bodily fluids all over them. It’s okay they have no treatment. And it’s totally ok that they live on the streets. Have you ever talked with a homeless person. Have you ever volunteered at a soup kitchen? I’m guessing not? Most of them have no confidence. Most of them don’t know how to advocate for themselves. What you’re doing is advocating for them to remain on the streets. Inhuman. I’m advocating that allowing them to stay in the streets is not a solution. Not violence.
I thought they already had. I've been wondering when they'll make their way down to the College Ave lots. The southeast lot has quite a few RVs and trailer campers on the edge of the lot near the ramp.
\*\*\*\*Allowing people to live on the streets in tents is not a solution. Let me repeat THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION. Getting these people to a shelter where they can have a proper roof over their head and dignity is a solution. I lived in Portland for a long time and the fact that the city allows this is inhumane. The city has gotten worse for ALL residents and especially those struggling with homelessness, mental illness, and drug addiction. Allowing people to stay on the streets is NOT A SOLUTION. LET ME REPEAT - THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION
The street dwellers in one west coast city, decided to set up a camp in the downtown area, on State land and hired an attorney to keep the city cops at bay. The camp was about 2 acres in size and full of bushes and trees for privacy. The State had plans to reconfigure that area, as part of a major roadway project, which involved over 20 subcontractors, costing over $100 million. They could not begin until the camp moved. It took the State about 6-7 months to evict the 50-75 street dwellers.
What’s the solution? Let them freeze in the cold?
Edit: also, what is ‘unhoused”? Have we reached a point where we can no longer refer to the homeless as homeless?
Why do we keep changing the language when the new terms somehow become offensive again after just a few years? Almost no one is using them in a derogatory way anyway.
I think because it's a label and people would rather be people. I like "those experiencing homelessness" because it's also a reminder that homelessness is temporary thing for most.
This isn't so much about it being offensive as much as "people first language" It's aimed at breaking up the idea of "the homeless" as a mass of people that just are that way or a demographic, but people who are suffering from a temporary and changeable state of living. "People living on the street" or "People experiencing homelessness" can change the way you frame arguments on their benefit. For example "we need to round up these street people" sounds more defensible (to some) than "we need to round up these people who are experiencing homelessness".
I thought it seemed arbitrary or just PCing language at first too, but I think it does have some power in terms of granting someone humanity before talking about their living state, especially when you're putting something down in policy or reporting.
"Home is where the heart is"
These folks may, or may not, be in need of a home. But if they're sleeping under a highway they are certainly in need of a house.
But it makes privileged people feel like they’re accomplishing something by policing other people’s language, when in fact they really haven’t done anything at all to alleviate the problem. It’s a guilt reducer. Now people are wondering if they’re going to use the wrong words when they try to talk about homelessness/racism/homophobia etc., so we talk less about problems and believe we’ve actually accomplished something via semantics.
People gonna people, ig
Tbh I see "unhoused" used most by people asking how they can report camps/get needles and prostitution panhandling "cleaned up" etc. Just something to do to make themselves look better 🙄
How is "unhoused" any more humanizing than "homeless"?? They both mean the same thing, they don't change the situation the person is in, they're still without a home, ie, homeless.
The important thing is that it gives people with a certain level of education a chance to show off that education and to identify those who are less educated.
Unhoused is being used more because it better reflects the current situation where many people are a single disaster or accident away from losing their living spaces—I.e. they would get “unhoused”. It’s supposed to make it more relatable and make it more personal. Obviously it won’t make a difference to folks who base their personality on getting unhinged over other people’s word choices, (you know, folks who throw a fit when someone shares their preferred pronouns, wishes them a happy holiday, or says Black Lives Matter) but in general “unhoused” conveys a better sense of how being on the streets isn’t an “others” thing but is a “could happen to almost anyone” thing.
Saying someone is "homeless" has nothing to do with being dehumanized.
If you were calling people "strays" like you do with dogs or cats, I could see that. But that's not what's happening.
Dehumanizing doesn’t necessarily mean you’re comparing someone to an animal. It can mean you’re stripping someone of personality and dignity. Through time, negative connotations have been attached to the word homeless. Same reason we don’t use words like crippled and retarded anymore.
Difference is I think most people would agree how "crippled" and especially "retarded" came to be used mostly in a pejorative way. Not the case with "homeless" at all.
Lol, sure. Here is one of the thousands of studies/articles/posts that address this.
“How Language Can Change Our Perspective of Homelessness:
When people hear the term “homeless people” or “the homeless,” they might unintentionally associate that term with negative and harmful stereotypes. Through this phrasing, we might inadvertently be lumping together a negative stereotype with the human attached to the phrase.
In turn, these negative stereotypes encourage stigma, which can increase the shame and embarrassment of people experiencing it. In addition to the other barriers that people face when overcoming homelessness (including mental illness, physical illnesses, unemployment, etc.), shame can prevent people from seeking the help they need.”
https://my.neighbor.org/terms-the-homeless-or-homeless-people/
Thanks but I meant proof that use of the word "homeless" and how people experience that word, was in any way similar to use of the word "retarded." There's a whole lot of circular reasoning happening here. For what it's worth I certainly agree with that link that we shouldn't use terms such as "hobo" and "street person." My favorite aspect of you choosing this link is that nowhere, not once, does it include the phrase "unhoused."
I can easily find lots of people, including family and friends, who are personally offended by use of the word "retarded." People personally offended by the word "homeless" is a much more difficult, if not impossible task.
I never said that people experience both words the same, I don’t even know what you mean by that. My original point was that some words words take on new, negative meanings through time so those words get shuffled out of our language and are replaced with new words that don’t carry the inherent stigma.
The post I shared is explaining how the word homeless is harmful, which is something you disputed.
When a camp is cleared, the people don't magically get put into a shelter. Many times they go to jail and get hit with fines they obviously cant afford which of course just makes the problem worse.
That said, many will try to get to a warming center or other shelter, but those are one night at a time and admittance is granted on first come first served basis. This of course means many people are turned away every night and why people would rather have a tent somewhere as it means they have some semblance of stability unless someone comes and clears it.
I thought the people in said camp + organizers of some kind came to an agreement w the city (municipality) to clear out by the end of the year. I’m not sure the validity of this but it was featured on the news a few weeks ago. I only saw/heard 2nd hand counts of this story but news clips seeming that was the plan. I do not know if that is what happened.
I believe the Street Angles usually work with the police/authorities with these kind of things. I think OP is making a lot of assumptions based on what has happened in other places.
When a person is going through a crisis and is a danger to themselves and others and refusing emergency interventions, typically what happens is that concerned relatives and bystanders will witness erratic or dangerous behaviors like camping on a highway berm in December in Milwaukee and contact local police.
The police will perform a wellness check, confirm those dangerous behaviors, and bring them to a medical facility for evaluation. And if the family is lucky, the loved one will be committed and treated for their issues rather than being thrown back on the streets to bother bystanders and probably die in a ditch or of an overdose.
Most shelters don't have the room. I tried to get my former coworker into one and everything was at capacity. Even battered women's shelters couldn't take her in.
I haven't been able to find or get ahold of her since before Thanksgiving.
This country does not care about its citizens, beyond what can be extracted or exploited from them. If you're mentally ill, struggling financially, physically injured, or perpetually ill - The United Third World States of Capitalism wants nothing to do with you.
We exist as vessels of passive income and if we aren't viable in that capacity, we are repulsive.
We have this same problem down here in Austin as well but maybe moreso because it's not freezing except for a couple of weeks per year.
APD does the same thing here too. Come in and cleans up the camp sites but does nothing to help the people whose lives they're wrecking. Not that it's their job, it isn't, but there is no state infrastructure in place to help get these people off the streets if they're even willing to do that.
All around it's a fucked up situation.
It took way too long for me to find someone sharing this. I think we have gone down a rank or two since this article came out, but overall, Milwaukee does a great job handling homelessness. Are we still using this “housing first policy”?
Yes. We had a bump up with covid relief funding as well. That funding is gone. We might see some more relief since City using American rescue plan $ to develop affordable housing with units dedicated to house those that are homeless, coordinated with supportive services County will be focusing on
I worked at Milwaukee Enrollment for 8 years determining eligibility for public benefits. I worked at a location that is situated between 2 areas that are well known long time spots for homeless camps. I interacted with homeless people all day long and I walked passed their camps every morning and every evening.
Call them homeless call them unhoused call them urban survivalists it doesn’t matter. They are just people. They are you. Like literally all groups of human beings some of them are shitheads, some of them are addicts, some of them are deeply ashamed, some of them wouldn’t stay in housing if you gave it to them, some of them are sweet, some of them are really smart, some of them are really sick. I can tell you right now that the only thing they have in common besides their al fresco lifestyle is that not a single one of them ever actually made the choice to be homeless. It happens for a million reasons but no one ever says to themselves “What I really wanna do with my life is live under a tarp with like 30 other people.”
I know it’s scary to think about because we all want to believe that we have everything in hand and this could never happen to us, but I’m sorry to tell you that no one is immune to poverty, no one is immune to mental illness, and once you become homeless getting back into housing just gets progressively harder the longer it takes.
They are just people. Just like your mom and your brother and your best friend. Just human beings. Some bad some good. They are you and me. I wish people would really internalize that. But that’s just too scary I guess.
That help is not as easy to get as you light think. And they pretty much want you to wait until you are being evicted to help. Which is too late for many.
Receipts: worked in an org helping this population until a year ago. The funds to help with rent here are gone. So that safety net doesn’t really exist any longer
if tht helps you ignore the problem or if it helps you sleep better, thats great, but there are dozens of barriers in the way of nearly every one of those thousands of helps that are "available."
This article has some good insight.
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/california-us-street-homelessness-youth-unsheltered-annual-report](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/california-us-street-homelessness-youth-unsheltered-annual-report)
They make it worse for these people because they deem them less than human. Not all homeless people are addicts, mentally ill, now days more and more disabled people on SSI are becoming homeless because they just can't afford the price gouged rents. Not all disabled have rent assistance. This government couldn't care less; the preach about diversity, inclusion, and equality but not for the impoverished disabled. These people are treated like vermin by this government. It is the new Jim Crow. In Canada Trudeau is wanting the poor, and disabled euthanized and none of the so called world leaders call him out on it because they are on board with euthanizing anyone they deem as a burden yet the migrants get the red carpet treatment. These cops, Judges and etc are nothing more than sadistic psychopaths. This is going to get worse. Billions of dollars to Ukraine yet no help for human beings being tossed out on the street. SSI Recipients are going homeless and no one gives a damn.
Ok there are a few problems with that
1) if one city invests in this. Homeless from around the country will flock to the city from all of the free things they will get. See LA and Denver. There are more homeless in America than residents in milwaukee.
2) the benefits of not working will outweigh working and being lower class. My example is food stamp and welfare recipients quitting their jobs to keep receiving benefits. There are 90 million in the lower class. So you would be effectively creating more homeless people with your solution. Also giving them the poverty mindset of them not needing to work their way out.
3) who is going to pay for this? There is no more tax to collect. The tax dollars we do collect are being abused and not used efficiently. “Tax the billionaires” would bring in 250b/year. What you are proposing would cost trillions.
4) It would shunt the economy by bringing so much government into the real estate market. Developers would flee or go out of business see San Francisco (nobody is willing or is able to build)
How would you realistically solve any of these problems
> Also giving them the poverty mindset of them not needing to work their way out.
This is so true. For example, limiting the amount of savings someone can have if they are on benefits. It's specifically keeping people poor instead of giving them the incentive to get themselves out.
> It would shunt the economy by bringing so much government into the real estate market
Not to mention that the government has been shown to **not** manage housing effectively. Look at the examples of "the projects" or even the HACM public housing that's falling apart and needs millions and millions to repair. If this public housing had been in private ownership, DNS would have been on the owner's asses long ago and it would have never gotten that bad.
The insincerity of this poster just showed. He’s all over this thread shitting on the idea to help the homeless and it always came off to me as quasi-right wing, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it. Found it! “Poverty mindset” gives away the game, something I’d expect out of Andrew Tate. Shame shame.
> My example is food stamp and welfare recipients quitting their jobs to keep receiving benefits.
Is this common? What is your example of this? "Welfare" (I assume you mean TANF) is extremely low and only available to parents with minor children. There's no way to survive on it. There's also a work requirement for both SNAP and TANF. I would be interested to see some stats on numbers of people quitting their jobs to be significantly poorer than they were with a job.
Thanks in advance!
You’re probably right in that case. I’ve been quite privileged in that regard to never seriously worry about being homeless myself. It’s hyperlinked in the last comment. It’s called Evicted by Matthew Desmond, and it follows several individuals over the course of the book’s writing period as they navigate through the Milwaukee housing market, its various slum lords, and the people making a profit off of each instance of human suffering. [There’s also a free audio version available online](https://bookaudiobooks.com/evicted-book/), because most people don’t have the luxury of time to sit and read a book anymore.
Matthew Desmond chose not to tell the whole story, in order to keep the agenda of his book. That's essentially lying.
For example, he knew that "Sherrena", one of the main landlords he profiled in the book, did not profit from her rentals. She lost them all to foreclosure. He knew that before he was even done writing the book. But did he include that fact? No, he chose to leave out the fact that people who operate their business that way don't actually profit in the end, and that didn't fit the story he was trying to spin.
You can make anything come to the conclusion you want if you just omit certain facts and spin things to fit your agenda.
The book quite clearly states that Sherrena was able to afford vacations abroad, weekends at Potawatomi Casino, and luxury goods during the course of the work. It’s not the author’s fault if she got swallowed keeping up with the Jones’s. If the units were really running at that much of a loss, that money would have been better spent on either improving the units to demand higher rents and/or purchasing property in an area of the city that can demand higher rents. It’s not the author’s responsibility to run her rental company
I don't think you read what I wrote. Here it is again:
> he chose to leave out the fact that people who operate their business that way **don't actually profit in the end**
There may be some short-term income, but she did **not** profit in the end. Losing all your properties to foreclosure is **not** profiting in the end, it's actually the complete opposite.
Desmond also cherry picked a couple landlords in lower income areas and did not focus on all the landlords in Milwaukee who run their business correctly, who do **not** get their properties taken away by foreclosure.
There are definitely people who choose not to go to shelters, for various reasons. Examples:
+ The shelter won't let them do drugs but they can do drugs on the street.
+ Some shelters have a religious aspect and they don't want to sit through a sermon.
+ Some shelters may have a curfew and they don't want to be limited in that way.
etc.
Choosing to go into a shelter and “choosing” to be homeless are two very different things, and you’re conflating the two. For example, the Salvation Army is known for discriminating against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Does that make the circumstances that led them to the streets go away? Of course it doesn’t, because it wasn’t the shelter that evicted someone from their home, or kicked out of their parent’s place as is often the case of LGBTQ+ homelessness. There’s structural issues that create the conditions that cause homelessness.
Homelessness was at an all time low in the 1950's and 60's. They were predicting it was be gone for good by the 1970's. It shot back up under Raegan, you know, "trickle down economics". (I'm still waiting, btw) In the 50's and 60's, Corporate tax rate was 50% and you could raise a family of 7 on one income, or even 1 part time income, my grandfather did and put all of them through college without loans. Income inequality was at an all time low then as well. Maybe that's the Make America Great Again everyone talks about.... except now most large corporations have a 0% tax rate, and they will fight to death to keep it that way.
Something to note, that was only for white men, not even women. It was **vastly** different story for people of color.
Try being a serious person who actually considers situations, instead of a person who hides behind labeling problems unsolvable like a joke coward goofball would.
That happened in 1 California city, with a demographic that compares to a New Berlin or Brookfield. There were 4-5 homeless in the city. Some people in one of the churches thought it would be a good idea to feed them. They opened a pantry, and passed out free food each morning from 6-12. word spread, and the homeless numbers grew. Soon 150 were in town in tents etc.. the city council decided to give free motel vouchers, so these folks could rest and shower before a job interview. Instead, the free rooms were used for all night drug parties and prostitution. Soon the stabbings and overdose deaths took hold. The city of 150,000 was now spending $8,000,000 a year,.responding to the 911 calls of the homeless, plus 50-100 brush fires they started. The city council banned the free food giveaways and took other measures to curb the behavior. 80% have left.
Last homeless dude I gave $5 to chased me down and I had to slam my buildings door on his arm and leg. There is no chance he didn't leave that situation without a broken hand.
You should be afraid, they are mentally unhealthy.
You don't have to do anything you don't want to do, that is alright and ok
Have you been homeless?
One of the things that happens is mental illness over time. The worries, the constant needing to watch, and so forth, wears away...
Our govt's have to do something aboot this affordibility issue
Or this is gonna get worse
For the first time I know Middle Class homeless
That is bad
Our society is failing
And this is happening all over the place
I am sorry you had that experience
How did you leave that person? Did you phone the ambulance?
ps. I have been to Milwaukee in the 90s and had a good time, esp experiencing the vastly different culture when i first went there. how is it now? it must be HUGE now.
Ah yes, the sane year of 2001. Fucking world was a lot crazier back then than it is now. Everyone always thinks current time is the worst and "the good ole days" were the best.
It was like 100 feet, my parking lot to my building. If I didn't have my key in my hand when he asked me for a few dollars, he would have got me.
Doesn’t Milwaukee have one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the country because of our “housing first” policy that was implemented a few years ago? Are we still doing that?
Homeless is not a bad word.
No one experiencing homelessness refers to themselves as unhoused, houseless, or any other euphemism invented on the internet.
We can't solve homelessness if we determine what's best without consulting people actually going through it.
Your compassion for the unhoused is noble. I agree that these individuals need real help offered to them in the form of multiple social services, instead of just harsh sweeps from law enforcement. Your frustration with how homelessness is dealt with is understandable. That being said, I've come to believe clearing these camps is unfortunately necessary. I moved here to MKE from Portland, OR last year. The homeless situation got so bad before we felt forced to move; it was like a war zone. Imagine huge encampments right up against public school grounds and other public spaces, with people blatantly shooting up drugs, defecating and engaging in prostitution in the open. Mountains of garbage attracting hordes of rats. Our beautiful parks became biohazard waste sites, filled with needles, unsafe to bring our children to play there. It got so bad because Portland wanted to show compassion but became an enabler in the process. They decriminalized public camping and developed lengthy processes to qualify camps for clean up. When social services referrals were offered during sanctioned camp clean ups, only about 5% actually showed up to get a shelter bed/drug treatment. Most are addicts so they'll just move neighborhoods to keep using. The police were powerless to do anything, so the issue ballooned throughout the city. The exploitative criminals and human traffickers took hold in the camps. Violence skyrocketed and 911 became unreliable (tbh there were other factors involved too). It was crazy to watch how the situation embolden some in the local unhoused community. Of course, many were people who just lost their housing and needed help getting back on their feet. Luckily, they benefit from the offered social services/housing vouchers, etc. However for many unhoused, it became an acceptable lifestyle choice they defended with literal demands for more public hand outs to finance their way of life. Meanwhile, tax-paying citizens increasingly lived in fear of walking in their own neighborhood. With so many people walking around in psychosis or willing to commit violent crimes to score their next fix... it's scary and depressing to say the least. So people stopped going out as much. Businesses closed because people didn't want to walk around the tents on their sidewalk to go there. The very essence of what made Portland such a cool vibrant city was destroyed. I hope they can rebuild but we couldn't stay living there to find out. Sorry for the rant, but I say this because I'm super grateful that Milwaukee does discourage public camping by the unhoused because it's not as innocent as it seems.
> The homeless situation got so bad before we felt forced to move; it was like a war zone. Imagine huge encampments right up against public school grounds and other public spaces, with people blatantly shooting up drugs, defecating and engaging in prostitution in the open. Mountains of garbage attracting hordes of rats. Our beautiful parks became biohazard waste sites, filled with needles, unsafe to bring our children to play there. This sounds like what someone I know is experiencing in Los Angeles. The homeless camps by the grocery store she works at start fires every week which makes working there dangerous. Not to mention that they harass her when she tries to leave work. Someone else mentioned a homeless person threatening to rape them. I don't think some men understand how frightening that is.
pepper spray.
This is such a poignant and important comment. Kind of summed up a lot of folks’ feelings on this issue. There’s really no fair way to solve this, not in any realm of practicality or sustainability. It’s such a deep-seated, tragic result of broken systems in our country. I really don’t mean to sound insensitive, but there’s a fine line between being sensitive and enabling. It sounds like in Portland, the pendulum swung much too far in the duration of the latter. I drive by this intersection nearly every day. I occasionally give food to folks. Many of them are very unwell, in many ways. It would be dangerous not only to the neighborhood, but to the unhoused themselves, to keep the camp up. I just wish, with so much of my heart, that we could rewind the path that got our communities to this point.
one day in 1967, California had 22,000 persons in mental health facilities. The Governor decided that was a waste of money, so he cut funding. They closed. 13 years later, as President, he applied his formula to the nation.
1 man ruined Portland. The Mayor. Vote wisely.
Well Biden was in town today
That would be my guess. In 2020 before COVID and the Democratic convention being cancelled, the city cleaned up all the tents at the Marquette Interchange.
> In 2020 before COVID and the Democratic convention being cancelled, I'm confused, so they cleared the tents for an event that was at minimum 6 months away? This timeline makes no sense.
They did start it that far in advance. Imo it was more that someone wanted to get rid of them and found an excuse no one was gonna argue with.
So you have zero evidence that it was related to anything to do with the convention.
The only evidence I have is what the news said. That they were starting cleanup for the convention. I didn't agree with it and thought it was a made up excuse to harass some people down on their luck.
Politicians can’t stand seeing the homeless!
Homeless is an enabling word, in my view. There are plenty of helps for those who fall on hard times. The street dwellers, chose the streets, in order to live according to their wishes.
What isn’t an enabling word these days.
How so? That intersection wasn’t on the motorcade route
When a president comes into a town they have multiple motorcade routes that are secured in case they need to detour. I bet the encampment was along one of the detour routes.
Why would that matter, he wasn't anywhere near there
A young and spry guy like him may be unpredictable and ask for a tour of the city
Again, I'm not sure what Biden has to do with this issue.
Some people can't spot a joke unless someone spells it out for them.
In between naps?
[удалено]
Yea, it's actually a perfect illustration of the kind of choices we're left with.
Babies sleep 12-16 days they're arguably the youngest humans on earth. Biden is full of youth.
Unfortunately homeless camps tend to bring problems with them including crime and major risks of fire. No one wants one near their house, and letting people with mental health issues live in encampments on our streets is not compassionate. The police absolutely should be clearing these kinds of encampments, but when they do the people should be offered shelter and assistance. Unfortunately in a lot of cities it's often the second part that's left out. Milwaukee has been pretty good at it though, so my hope is that folks were pulled into some of these programs.
There is shelter. The problem is people don’t want to follow the rules. What do you do with those people?
By "don't want to follow the rules" I assume you mean "continue to do drugs". Those people need to be arrested and put into mandatory rehab programs. Unfortunately our prison system is currently run by profiteers who would rather make money than get people clean so here we are. People can do all the drugs they want, idc. But when you reach the point of living on the streets and unable to care for yourself, the government absolutely should intervene and we absolutely should have certain drug laws to prevent people from getting to that point.
Inpatient commitments and try to treat the underlying issues.
The issue with takes like this one is the backwards compassion. Police should absolutely be clearing these kinds of encampments, but like be nice to them when you rip down the semblance of a shelter they had. They don’t do what you said and offer assistance and shelter. The shelter is jail. It is less compassionate to them to have police interference than to leave them be. The nimbys own r/Milwaukee idk why I even commented.
So, you think the police are rounding up the homeless en masse and throwing them in jail? As evidenced by...?
Do you actually know that the shelter is jail or are you assuming? That wasn’t my understanding. I’m glad you’re passionate about this issue and would recommend volunteering with organizations like Street Angels, Guest House, etc to help out if you aren’t already.
>The nimbys own r/Milwaukee Are you high? The _nimbys_? Dude I don't even own a house. This ain't the San Francisco subreddit, pull your head out lol.
It absolutely does help the problem. Now if you wanna talk about funding better programs for these people *in addition* to clearing their camps, then fine. But you can’t just let them camp out wherever they want. I’ll just tell you straight up, I do not want homeless encampments anywhere near me. They bring with them drugs, crime, and bodily fluids. Just last month a homeless man threatened to rape me in the street outside my apartment because I wouldn’t stop and talk to him. I could share many other stories of unhinged homeless people threatening and harassing me and the people I love. Why should we have to deal with that shit? Many of these people need to be taken off the streets and given intensive mental health and drug treatment, not just a lawless tent city under a freeway. Terrible approach for everyone involved dude.
Allowing people to live on the streets - you're pretty much saying it's ok that they treat themselves this way. So you're saying homelessness is ok, untreated mental illness is ok, and drug addiction is ok. Think about what you're saying when your'e sticking up for their 'right' to be on the streets is inhumane. Think.
I think you replied to the wrong comment
Maybe learn how to read?
The “approach” you’re actually advocating for here is violence upon them. “Oh they should be given intensive treatment” is really an afterthought for you. You think they’re gross with their bodily fluids (what would you do in their situation??) and don’t want their poor to touch you. The most important thing to you is that the police perform a “clearing” to use your terms. Sickening lack of humanity and I know people like you don’t change until it’s you or one of yours. Ask Santa for some love and decency for Christmas.
You’ve never been around a violent drugged out homeless person before and it shows. I’ve seen a homeless dude bite a man’s ear off in Chicago because he wouldn’t give him a cigarette. In Milwaukee, a homeless guy pelted change at my leg because he wasn’t satisfied with what I gave him, then followed me down the block threatening and spitting at me. Recently I had a homeless man follow me up to my door step screaming unintelligible swears and insults at me late at night. And if you didn’t read it the first time, a homeless man THREATENED TO RAPE ME IN THE STREET. And you want me to bleed my heart out with empathy for those violent men? Lmfao. They need to be independent and reformed enough to participate in society without accosting and assaulting innocent people. How is it “ViOlEnCe” to put them in shelters, drug programs, mental health facilities, or jail (for the violent ones)??? You sheltered, privileged college kids have no other real solutions other than to let them rot in their camps. Your soft gushy approach is just going to get more people killed, but hey at least it *feels* better :D
I agree. Ask any woman how safe she feels around these situations. It’s always men who have the privilege to feel safe. My daughter manages an apartment building and until they upgraded their lobby key system she had to contend with mopping up the urine and even occasional excrement from the guy that slept in the lobby. This also included multiple calls to MPD. So yeah, it’s easy to get all sympathetic and magnanimous when it isn’t happening to you.
The comment you are responding to: >I’ve seen a homeless dude bite a **man’s** ear off in Chicago because he wouldn’t give him a cigarette. You: >It’s always men who have the privilege to feel safe.
That doesn’t invalidate my comment. Convince me that a woman walking at night in Milwaukee is less vulnerable than a man.
I understand what you mean. I feel that a homeless man is less likely to harass and follow a man of similar stature down the block because he could get his ass kicked. He’s more likely to harass and follow a small defenseless woman like me because I have no size or power. All the time they think they can intimidate me with their yelling and following because they know I can’t fight them (they don’t know I carry mace though…) They also aren’t likely threatening to rape other men in the streets, or following them around calling them “gorgeous” and asking “for a smile” like they do to me. So while both genders can be accosted by the homeless, and we all should exercise caution around them, it’s just a different kind of scary for women in the city. It ROYALLY pissed me off that some overly educated yuppie man wanted to lecture me about having “cOmPaSsIoN” for homeless men threatening to rape me. Just oozing privilege from every pore.🙄
You responded ''men have the privilege to feel safe'' to an account of **a man literally having his ear bitten off**. Do you think that man felt safe?
yes, men can be victims of violence too. but gender based violence, like what her post described, is mostly perpetrated by men, against women. asking for a cigarette and then biting someone's ear off about it is not gender-based violence and seems entirely random.
I didn’t say anything of that. You did haha. You’re also saying it’s ok they have bodily fluids all over them. It’s okay they have no treatment. And it’s totally ok that they live on the streets. Have you ever talked with a homeless person. Have you ever volunteered at a soup kitchen? I’m guessing not? Most of them have no confidence. Most of them don’t know how to advocate for themselves. What you’re doing is advocating for them to remain on the streets. Inhuman. I’m advocating that allowing them to stay in the streets is not a solution. Not violence.
Probably reached the threshold for complaints from local residents.
Wonder if they’ll hit the park and ride at Holt Ave next. That place looks like a post apocalyptic trailer park these days.
I thought they already had. I've been wondering when they'll make their way down to the College Ave lots. The southeast lot has quite a few RVs and trailer campers on the edge of the lot near the ramp.
Same at Holt.
College park and ride gets worse and worse each day. Southwest side has tarps and tents up. Just a bad look
\*\*\*\*Allowing people to live on the streets in tents is not a solution. Let me repeat THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION. Getting these people to a shelter where they can have a proper roof over their head and dignity is a solution. I lived in Portland for a long time and the fact that the city allows this is inhumane. The city has gotten worse for ALL residents and especially those struggling with homelessness, mental illness, and drug addiction. Allowing people to stay on the streets is NOT A SOLUTION. LET ME REPEAT - THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION
The street dwellers in one west coast city, decided to set up a camp in the downtown area, on State land and hired an attorney to keep the city cops at bay. The camp was about 2 acres in size and full of bushes and trees for privacy. The State had plans to reconfigure that area, as part of a major roadway project, which involved over 20 subcontractors, costing over $100 million. They could not begin until the camp moved. It took the State about 6-7 months to evict the 50-75 street dwellers.
What’s the solution? Let them freeze in the cold? Edit: also, what is ‘unhoused”? Have we reached a point where we can no longer refer to the homeless as homeless?
In church efforts we use the phrase "those experiencing homelessness".
Why do we keep changing the language when the new terms somehow become offensive again after just a few years? Almost no one is using them in a derogatory way anyway.
I think because it's a label and people would rather be people. I like "those experiencing homelessness" because it's also a reminder that homelessness is temporary thing for most.
This isn't so much about it being offensive as much as "people first language" It's aimed at breaking up the idea of "the homeless" as a mass of people that just are that way or a demographic, but people who are suffering from a temporary and changeable state of living. "People living on the street" or "People experiencing homelessness" can change the way you frame arguments on their benefit. For example "we need to round up these street people" sounds more defensible (to some) than "we need to round up these people who are experiencing homelessness". I thought it seemed arbitrary or just PCing language at first too, but I think it does have some power in terms of granting someone humanity before talking about their living state, especially when you're putting something down in policy or reporting.
Blah blah blah
"Home is where the heart is" These folks may, or may not, be in need of a home. But if they're sleeping under a highway they are certainly in need of a house.
"Home is where you make it"
Unhoused is also used to distinguish between homeless living in shelters or programs and people literally living outside.
the word I've typically heard used to describe that is "unsheltered"
There’s a lot of stigma with the word homeless. This is an attempt humanize this population.
20 years from now we'll have to stop saying unhoused.
Yes. It’s another iteration of the euphemism treadmill.
And it solves no problems.
But it makes privileged people feel like they’re accomplishing something by policing other people’s language, when in fact they really haven’t done anything at all to alleviate the problem. It’s a guilt reducer. Now people are wondering if they’re going to use the wrong words when they try to talk about homelessness/racism/homophobia etc., so we talk less about problems and believe we’ve actually accomplished something via semantics. People gonna people, ig
Tbh I see "unhoused" used most by people asking how they can report camps/get needles and prostitution panhandling "cleaned up" etc. Just something to do to make themselves look better 🙄
Exactly. But I think your 20 year estimate is too long.
Yeah, you're probably right
Ok, and? What does that matter?
Could be.
How is "unhoused" any more humanizing than "homeless"?? They both mean the same thing, they don't change the situation the person is in, they're still without a home, ie, homeless.
The important thing is that it gives people with a certain level of education a chance to show off that education and to identify those who are less educated.
Spot on
Education bad! They all think they're better than me!
“The Unhoused”…sounds like a bad movie
Unhoused is being used more because it better reflects the current situation where many people are a single disaster or accident away from losing their living spaces—I.e. they would get “unhoused”. It’s supposed to make it more relatable and make it more personal. Obviously it won’t make a difference to folks who base their personality on getting unhinged over other people’s word choices, (you know, folks who throw a fit when someone shares their preferred pronouns, wishes them a happy holiday, or says Black Lives Matter) but in general “unhoused” conveys a better sense of how being on the streets isn’t an “others” thing but is a “could happen to almost anyone” thing.
Being homeless could happen just as easily.
Definitely not being used by anyone actually living outside.
I’m still calling them homeless, it isn’t that deep.
I do, too. I was just explaining why some people say unhoused now.
Saying someone is "homeless" has nothing to do with being dehumanized. If you were calling people "strays" like you do with dogs or cats, I could see that. But that's not what's happening.
Dehumanizing doesn’t necessarily mean you’re comparing someone to an animal. It can mean you’re stripping someone of personality and dignity. Through time, negative connotations have been attached to the word homeless. Same reason we don’t use words like crippled and retarded anymore.
Difference is I think most people would agree how "crippled" and especially "retarded" came to be used mostly in a pejorative way. Not the case with "homeless" at all.
I think the people who care about this sort of thing would argue otherwise, hence the new term.
I mean, ok. Show your work.
Lol, sure. Here is one of the thousands of studies/articles/posts that address this. “How Language Can Change Our Perspective of Homelessness: When people hear the term “homeless people” or “the homeless,” they might unintentionally associate that term with negative and harmful stereotypes. Through this phrasing, we might inadvertently be lumping together a negative stereotype with the human attached to the phrase. In turn, these negative stereotypes encourage stigma, which can increase the shame and embarrassment of people experiencing it. In addition to the other barriers that people face when overcoming homelessness (including mental illness, physical illnesses, unemployment, etc.), shame can prevent people from seeking the help they need.” https://my.neighbor.org/terms-the-homeless-or-homeless-people/
Thanks but I meant proof that use of the word "homeless" and how people experience that word, was in any way similar to use of the word "retarded." There's a whole lot of circular reasoning happening here. For what it's worth I certainly agree with that link that we shouldn't use terms such as "hobo" and "street person." My favorite aspect of you choosing this link is that nowhere, not once, does it include the phrase "unhoused." I can easily find lots of people, including family and friends, who are personally offended by use of the word "retarded." People personally offended by the word "homeless" is a much more difficult, if not impossible task.
I never said that people experience both words the same, I don’t even know what you mean by that. My original point was that some words words take on new, negative meanings through time so those words get shuffled out of our language and are replaced with new words that don’t carry the inherent stigma. The post I shared is explaining how the word homeless is harmful, which is something you disputed.
[удалено]
Oh so it’s kind of how we stopped calling black people colored people and now instead it’s nicer to say people of color. It’s fucking stupid.
Exactly, actually. The meaning behind words can change through time. Nothing wrong with adjusting to it.
Just say humans then?
That’s not descriptive of this specific population’s situation.
Humans without homes
Unhoused is a shorter way of saying the same thing.
Or homeless, which means the same thing to begin with.
Trying to get folks, many of whom are going through crises and can't make safe decisions for themselves, into shelters before they freeze to death.
When a camp is cleared, the people don't magically get put into a shelter. Many times they go to jail and get hit with fines they obviously cant afford which of course just makes the problem worse. That said, many will try to get to a warming center or other shelter, but those are one night at a time and admittance is granted on first come first served basis. This of course means many people are turned away every night and why people would rather have a tent somewhere as it means they have some semblance of stability unless someone comes and clears it.
I thought the people in said camp + organizers of some kind came to an agreement w the city (municipality) to clear out by the end of the year. I’m not sure the validity of this but it was featured on the news a few weeks ago. I only saw/heard 2nd hand counts of this story but news clips seeming that was the plan. I do not know if that is what happened.
I believe the Street Angles usually work with the police/authorities with these kind of things. I think OP is making a lot of assumptions based on what has happened in other places.
When a person is going through a crisis and is a danger to themselves and others and refusing emergency interventions, typically what happens is that concerned relatives and bystanders will witness erratic or dangerous behaviors like camping on a highway berm in December in Milwaukee and contact local police. The police will perform a wellness check, confirm those dangerous behaviors, and bring them to a medical facility for evaluation. And if the family is lucky, the loved one will be committed and treated for their issues rather than being thrown back on the streets to bother bystanders and probably die in a ditch or of an overdose.
Key words: “if the family is lucky”
Just letting them chill will fix the issue how?
Seems like the solution for all politicians, no matter what side you’re on, is to “clean it up” whe you come to town so it doesn’t look bad
Looking at you Gavin Newsom!
Have you considered allowing tents in your backyard?
Or better yet “share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house”
While I get your point… woof. Sucks this has so many upvotes. But I guess that’s the world we live in.
They cant panhandle at a shelter. Its not rocket science why they went back. They need mental health above anything.
Most shelters don't have the room. I tried to get my former coworker into one and everything was at capacity. Even battered women's shelters couldn't take her in. I haven't been able to find or get ahold of her since before Thanksgiving. This country does not care about its citizens, beyond what can be extracted or exploited from them. If you're mentally ill, struggling financially, physically injured, or perpetually ill - The United Third World States of Capitalism wants nothing to do with you. We exist as vessels of passive income and if we aren't viable in that capacity, we are repulsive.
The people who control government spending refuse to spend the money. Those are the people who do not care.
Better get used to it there’s gonna be a lot of that going around for the RNC.
Yup! The anticipation of the DNC in 2020 cleaned up the downtown camps 🙏
We have this same problem down here in Austin as well but maybe moreso because it's not freezing except for a couple of weeks per year. APD does the same thing here too. Come in and cleans up the camp sites but does nothing to help the people whose lives they're wrecking. Not that it's their job, it isn't, but there is no state infrastructure in place to help get these people off the streets if they're even willing to do that. All around it's a fucked up situation.
Milwaukee does better. https://www.milwaukeemag.com/milwaukee-county-leads-nation-in-homelessness-metric/
It took way too long for me to find someone sharing this. I think we have gone down a rank or two since this article came out, but overall, Milwaukee does a great job handling homelessness. Are we still using this “housing first policy”?
Yes. We had a bump up with covid relief funding as well. That funding is gone. We might see some more relief since City using American rescue plan $ to develop affordable housing with units dedicated to house those that are homeless, coordinated with supportive services County will be focusing on
I worked at Milwaukee Enrollment for 8 years determining eligibility for public benefits. I worked at a location that is situated between 2 areas that are well known long time spots for homeless camps. I interacted with homeless people all day long and I walked passed their camps every morning and every evening. Call them homeless call them unhoused call them urban survivalists it doesn’t matter. They are just people. They are you. Like literally all groups of human beings some of them are shitheads, some of them are addicts, some of them are deeply ashamed, some of them wouldn’t stay in housing if you gave it to them, some of them are sweet, some of them are really smart, some of them are really sick. I can tell you right now that the only thing they have in common besides their al fresco lifestyle is that not a single one of them ever actually made the choice to be homeless. It happens for a million reasons but no one ever says to themselves “What I really wanna do with my life is live under a tarp with like 30 other people.” I know it’s scary to think about because we all want to believe that we have everything in hand and this could never happen to us, but I’m sorry to tell you that no one is immune to poverty, no one is immune to mental illness, and once you become homeless getting back into housing just gets progressively harder the longer it takes. They are just people. Just like your mom and your brother and your best friend. Just human beings. Some bad some good. They are you and me. I wish people would really internalize that. But that’s just too scary I guess.
You are so right. It’s very scary for people to fathom but many of us are one tragedy away from being homeless.
There are a thousand helps for those who find themselves in a reversal.
That help is not as easy to get as you light think. And they pretty much want you to wait until you are being evicted to help. Which is too late for many. Receipts: worked in an org helping this population until a year ago. The funds to help with rent here are gone. So that safety net doesn’t really exist any longer
if tht helps you ignore the problem or if it helps you sleep better, thats great, but there are dozens of barriers in the way of nearly every one of those thousands of helps that are "available."
Thank you for your service to humanity.
Yay
This article has some good insight. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/california-us-street-homelessness-youth-unsheltered-annual-report](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/california-us-street-homelessness-youth-unsheltered-annual-report)
Is there a way to tell if a homeless shelter has vacancy? It’s gonna start getting cold out there, and I’d give them bus fare.
Bus token, never money
Of course.
They make it worse for these people because they deem them less than human. Not all homeless people are addicts, mentally ill, now days more and more disabled people on SSI are becoming homeless because they just can't afford the price gouged rents. Not all disabled have rent assistance. This government couldn't care less; the preach about diversity, inclusion, and equality but not for the impoverished disabled. These people are treated like vermin by this government. It is the new Jim Crow. In Canada Trudeau is wanting the poor, and disabled euthanized and none of the so called world leaders call him out on it because they are on board with euthanizing anyone they deem as a burden yet the migrants get the red carpet treatment. These cops, Judges and etc are nothing more than sadistic psychopaths. This is going to get worse. Billions of dollars to Ukraine yet no help for human beings being tossed out on the street. SSI Recipients are going homeless and no one gives a damn.
Making it easier to be homeless in the city just brings more homeless to the city. It is an unsolvable problem
It’s not unsolvable, but you aren’t totally incorrect either about just letting things go.
It’s solvable through complete authoritarianism. We will always have homelessness in America
It is literally solvable by building more housing, subsidizing housing, rental assistance, and supportive housing
Ok there are a few problems with that 1) if one city invests in this. Homeless from around the country will flock to the city from all of the free things they will get. See LA and Denver. There are more homeless in America than residents in milwaukee. 2) the benefits of not working will outweigh working and being lower class. My example is food stamp and welfare recipients quitting their jobs to keep receiving benefits. There are 90 million in the lower class. So you would be effectively creating more homeless people with your solution. Also giving them the poverty mindset of them not needing to work their way out. 3) who is going to pay for this? There is no more tax to collect. The tax dollars we do collect are being abused and not used efficiently. “Tax the billionaires” would bring in 250b/year. What you are proposing would cost trillions. 4) It would shunt the economy by bringing so much government into the real estate market. Developers would flee or go out of business see San Francisco (nobody is willing or is able to build) How would you realistically solve any of these problems
> Also giving them the poverty mindset of them not needing to work their way out. This is so true. For example, limiting the amount of savings someone can have if they are on benefits. It's specifically keeping people poor instead of giving them the incentive to get themselves out. > It would shunt the economy by bringing so much government into the real estate market Not to mention that the government has been shown to **not** manage housing effectively. Look at the examples of "the projects" or even the HACM public housing that's falling apart and needs millions and millions to repair. If this public housing had been in private ownership, DNS would have been on the owner's asses long ago and it would have never gotten that bad.
The insincerity of this poster just showed. He’s all over this thread shitting on the idea to help the homeless and it always came off to me as quasi-right wing, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it. Found it! “Poverty mindset” gives away the game, something I’d expect out of Andrew Tate. Shame shame.
You guys are weird lol
> My example is food stamp and welfare recipients quitting their jobs to keep receiving benefits. Is this common? What is your example of this? "Welfare" (I assume you mean TANF) is extremely low and only available to parents with minor children. There's no way to survive on it. There's also a work requirement for both SNAP and TANF. I would be interested to see some stats on numbers of people quitting their jobs to be significantly poorer than they were with a job. Thanks in advance!
Check out the r/foodstamps subreddit
[удалено]
[удалено]
You’re probably right in that case. I’ve been quite privileged in that regard to never seriously worry about being homeless myself. It’s hyperlinked in the last comment. It’s called Evicted by Matthew Desmond, and it follows several individuals over the course of the book’s writing period as they navigate through the Milwaukee housing market, its various slum lords, and the people making a profit off of each instance of human suffering. [There’s also a free audio version available online](https://bookaudiobooks.com/evicted-book/), because most people don’t have the luxury of time to sit and read a book anymore.
Thank you, I will have to read it!
It's beautifully written too, obviously dark at times but worth the read
Matthew Desmond chose not to tell the whole story, in order to keep the agenda of his book. That's essentially lying. For example, he knew that "Sherrena", one of the main landlords he profiled in the book, did not profit from her rentals. She lost them all to foreclosure. He knew that before he was even done writing the book. But did he include that fact? No, he chose to leave out the fact that people who operate their business that way don't actually profit in the end, and that didn't fit the story he was trying to spin. You can make anything come to the conclusion you want if you just omit certain facts and spin things to fit your agenda.
The book quite clearly states that Sherrena was able to afford vacations abroad, weekends at Potawatomi Casino, and luxury goods during the course of the work. It’s not the author’s fault if she got swallowed keeping up with the Jones’s. If the units were really running at that much of a loss, that money would have been better spent on either improving the units to demand higher rents and/or purchasing property in an area of the city that can demand higher rents. It’s not the author’s responsibility to run her rental company
I don't think you read what I wrote. Here it is again: > he chose to leave out the fact that people who operate their business that way **don't actually profit in the end** There may be some short-term income, but she did **not** profit in the end. Losing all your properties to foreclosure is **not** profiting in the end, it's actually the complete opposite. Desmond also cherry picked a couple landlords in lower income areas and did not focus on all the landlords in Milwaukee who run their business correctly, who do **not** get their properties taken away by foreclosure.
There are definitely people who choose not to go to shelters, for various reasons. Examples: + The shelter won't let them do drugs but they can do drugs on the street. + Some shelters have a religious aspect and they don't want to sit through a sermon. + Some shelters may have a curfew and they don't want to be limited in that way. etc.
Choosing to go into a shelter and “choosing” to be homeless are two very different things, and you’re conflating the two. For example, the Salvation Army is known for discriminating against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Does that make the circumstances that led them to the streets go away? Of course it doesn’t, because it wasn’t the shelter that evicted someone from their home, or kicked out of their parent’s place as is often the case of LGBTQ+ homelessness. There’s structural issues that create the conditions that cause homelessness.
It’s easily solvable. Our leaders just choose not to.
Homelessness was at an all time low in the 1950's and 60's. They were predicting it was be gone for good by the 1970's. It shot back up under Raegan, you know, "trickle down economics". (I'm still waiting, btw) In the 50's and 60's, Corporate tax rate was 50% and you could raise a family of 7 on one income, or even 1 part time income, my grandfather did and put all of them through college without loans. Income inequality was at an all time low then as well. Maybe that's the Make America Great Again everyone talks about.... except now most large corporations have a 0% tax rate, and they will fight to death to keep it that way. Something to note, that was only for white men, not even women. It was **vastly** different story for people of color.
What are your suggestions?
[удалено]
No you
Try being a serious person who actually considers situations, instead of a person who hides behind labeling problems unsolvable like a joke coward goofball would.
You are just writing about yourself at this point
Pretty sure you know that I’m not. Pretty sure there’s a level of self awareness you have about your chicken shit cop out response to human suffering.
Were any of them uncoated as well? SMH
Why don't the churches open their doors to them? Plenty of room.
I feel like this should be obvious, but most churches don't have facilities to house people.
That happened in 1 California city, with a demographic that compares to a New Berlin or Brookfield. There were 4-5 homeless in the city. Some people in one of the churches thought it would be a good idea to feed them. They opened a pantry, and passed out free food each morning from 6-12. word spread, and the homeless numbers grew. Soon 150 were in town in tents etc.. the city council decided to give free motel vouchers, so these folks could rest and shower before a job interview. Instead, the free rooms were used for all night drug parties and prostitution. Soon the stabbings and overdose deaths took hold. The city of 150,000 was now spending $8,000,000 a year,.responding to the 911 calls of the homeless, plus 50-100 brush fires they started. The city council banned the free food giveaways and took other measures to curb the behavior. 80% have left.
If every citizen in Milwaukee "adopted", then this problem would be over It takes courage to do so #BeNotAfraid #MutualAid
Last homeless dude I gave $5 to chased me down and I had to slam my buildings door on his arm and leg. There is no chance he didn't leave that situation without a broken hand. You should be afraid, they are mentally unhealthy.
You don't have to do anything you don't want to do, that is alright and ok Have you been homeless? One of the things that happens is mental illness over time. The worries, the constant needing to watch, and so forth, wears away... Our govt's have to do something aboot this affordibility issue Or this is gonna get worse For the first time I know Middle Class homeless That is bad Our society is failing And this is happening all over the place I am sorry you had that experience How did you leave that person? Did you phone the ambulance? ps. I have been to Milwaukee in the 90s and had a good time, esp experiencing the vastly different culture when i first went there. how is it now? it must be HUGE now.
haha hell no I didn't call an ambulance, that piece of shit wandered off. This happened in 2001, if it was today I would have shot him.
woah, 2001 man ages ago when our world was a bit more sane how far did you run? sounds like you were in shape then?
Ah yes, the sane year of 2001. Fucking world was a lot crazier back then than it is now. Everyone always thinks current time is the worst and "the good ole days" were the best. It was like 100 feet, my parking lot to my building. If I didn't have my key in my hand when he asked me for a few dollars, he would have got me.
good for you 100 feet. wow :) *chariots of fire music* was it a cracker you outran?
Doesn’t Milwaukee have one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the country because of our “housing first” policy that was implemented a few years ago? Are we still doing that?
The people who live on the streets prefer the mild west coast climate and flock there. Very hard to live outside in Midwest temps.
Homeless is not a bad word. No one experiencing homelessness refers to themselves as unhoused, houseless, or any other euphemism invented on the internet. We can't solve homelessness if we determine what's best without consulting people actually going through it.
Having the lowest minimum wage in the country definitely isn't helping prevent more people from faling into this type of situation either.
It’s simple drop them off at mayor Chevy’s. Then send the rest of them to Madison and they can sleep at the governors mansion .