Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/homeless-upset-about-mcdonalds-dollar-menu-increase-dpgoh-20100907-fc_9517802

Must be one slow news day...

More concerned about the laws regarding loitering on the streets for the homeless.

Exactly where are the homeless to go if they eliminate a convenient place for them?

WarOne wrote:More concerned about the laws regarding loitering on the streets for the homeless.

Exactly where are the homeless to go if they eliminate a convenient place for them?

Any where but there?

WarOne wrote:More concerned about the laws regarding loitering on the streets for the homeless.

Exactly where are the homeless to go if they eliminate a convenient place for them?

I didn't realize McDonalds existed to give the homeless a place to squat.

They're a business. They are there to make money. Having 20 homeless guys living outside your door can't do much to help your clientele grow.

djones520 wrote:

WarOne wrote:More concerned about the laws regarding loitering on the streets for the homeless.

Exactly where are the homeless to go if they eliminate a convenient place for them?

I didn't realize McDonalds existed to give the homeless a place to squat.

They're a business. They are there to make money. Having 20 homeless guys living outside your door can't do much to help your clientele grow.

And they eliminated a convenient place for them to go.

Where do they go now?

EDIT: Keep in mind we are talking about people who cannot easily end their current condition and this is San Fran we're talking about.

DOUBLE EDIT:

@Frazzled- the law they would enact would mean they would not be able to stay on the street for long periods of time.

*shrugs* It's a sad situation for them but that doesn't mean that McDonalds, or any other business, should risk losing customers in an already weak economy over this.

If you want something done about it, host a fund raiser. Donate some money to an organization that helps these people. Write your congressman.

Don't demand a business lose money for it.

djones520 wrote:*shrugs* It's a sad situation for them but that doesn't mean that McDonalds, or any other business, should risk losing customers in an already weak economy over this.

If you want something done about it, host a fund raiser. Donate some money to an organization that helps these people. Write your congressman.

Don't demand a business lose money for it.

That wasn't my point. My point was the homeless were losing a convenient place to get food. The laws will then make it hard for them to loiter.

Alright, let me get my old quoting skills going here and grab you someone's personal experiences in being homeless in SF:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/LucidPanther/mcdonalds-price-hike-ange_n_706984_59681578.html

“I was homeless in SF for back in the mid nineties. It was a harrowing experience. You become a non-person of no value to society because you are not a consumer. The homeless in America are an 'Untouchables Class"- .

You could get daily meals at the Tenderloin area churches but, on weekends, they only served a small breakfast and you had a long time to another meal. The lines were hours long and sometimes they would run out of food while you were still on line--no food for that day for the hungry.

The shelters would have lines starting to form hours before letting you in ( sometimes in the rain ) and sometimes they would fill up before you got in so you are out in the cold.
Out in the cold and rain, police will not allow you to sit or lay down anywhere. No private place will allow you in and all public sidewalks, benches and parks are prohibited to you.

You are now a non-person-unwanted- hounded by police - chased away by business owners- hungry, dirty and cold.

Given these conditions it is no wonder most turn to alcohol and drugs to ease the misery and pain. Because panhandling peacefully has been prohibited in many areas, some turn to crime to get money for food, cigarettes, alcohol or drugs.

Society seems to simply want homeless Americans ( many of them veterans ) to collectively commit suicide and disapear.”

Where can they go?
It's a large city, there are numerous shelters, missions, etc.

http://sfhomeless.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Housing_-_Shelters_/_Transitional_Housing

agnosto wrote:Where can they go?
It's a large city, there are numerous shelters, missions, etc.

http://sfhomeless.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Housing_-_Shelters_/_Transitional_Housing

Thank you, agnosto.

Now what to do about laws regarding the homeless in San Fran not being able to loiter. Do you think there are adequate shelters and places of rest for the homeless in SF to be able to enjoy all these services given these statistics:

There are 1,623 homeless kids in the San Francisco school system (SF Unified School Districts).
There are approximately 35,000 homeless people living in the Bay Area at a given time (SF Bay Area counties point-in-time counts).
30-40% of the Bay Area homeless are families (Association of Bay Area Governments). In Alameda County, families comprise 43% of the homeless population (EveryOne Home).
62% live on the streets during the night (Association of Bay Area Governments).
San Francisco has the highest per capita rate of homelessness of any major American city. 7,000 homeless people live in SF at a given time. Some estimates put the number as high as 15,000 (SF Plan to Abolish Chronic Homelessness).
Only 15% of the homeless in SF are from out of state. Another 15% are from out of the city. Over 60% of SF’s homeless are natives (SF Bay Area counties point-in-time counts).
The care of one chronically homeless person using Emergency Room services and/or incarceration costs SF an average of $61,000/yr, whereas permanent, supportive housing, with treatment and care, would cost around $16,000/yr. (SF Ten Year Plan to Abolish Chronic Homelessness)

http://sfhsc.org/site/statistics-and-educational-information/

Huffpo's not exactly all that reliable a source IMO, but I don't at all doubt that their lifes are horrible. The city I grew up in had a decent sized homeless population, and it actually had real winters. We'd donate fresh salmon from our catches to the soup halls, and deer hides to local vendors that used them to make blankets for the homeless.

I'm not exactly sure what your driving at though. Are you upset at McDonalds for dropping the menu, or at San Fran for creating laws that chases the homeless off?

What do you suggest should be done?

If I think that I'll be hassled by the homeless at a place, I'm probably not going to go there.

I can understand McDonald's position.

djones520 wrote:*shrugs* It's a sad situation for them but that doesn't mean that McDonalds, or any other business, should risk losing customers in an already weak economy over this.

If you want something done about it, host a fund raiser. Donate some money to an organization that helps these people. Write your congressman.

Don't demand a business lose money for it.

There is another option (and don't think McDonalds has already thought of it).
Here's a hint:

Bah! That's just treatment of the symptom. What is causing all of this homelessness? That is what needs to be corrected.

Gitzbitah wrote:Bah! That's just treatment of the symptom. What is causing all of this homelessness? That is what needs to be corrected.

From the look of some of these people I'd say it's the T-Virus.

Down with Umbrella Corporation!

Seriously though, a lot of them tend to be mentally ill and/or addicts. It's a fethed up situation.

Can't they just walk to the nearest burger king, wendys, jack in the box, carl's jr, in & out, KFC or Taco Bell and use their dollar menu instead?

djones520 wrote:Huffpo's not exactly all that reliable a source IMO, but I don't at all doubt that their lifes are horrible. The city I grew up in had a decent sized homeless population, and it actually had real winters. We'd donate fresh salmon from our catches to the soup halls, and deer hides to local vendors that used them to make blankets for the homeless.

I'm not exactly sure what your driving at though. Are you upset at McDonalds for dropping the menu, or at San Fran for creating laws that chases the homeless off?

What do you suggest should be done?

Official stance: McDonald's can do what they want with their property and their products so long as it does not break a law. San Francisco is trying to enact laws to make sitting and lying on the streets a crime. No problem with McD's, problem with SF.

Solutions: Well, can't make McDonald's do something for the Greater Good so it is up to the municipality and charity of the region to help. So throw out that option.

1. Make housing affordable- this is the hardest but one of the best solutions to remove the homeless problem. Get people off the streets into affordable housing.

However, San Fran has highly unaffordable housing and therefore the effort of the city to solve this problem would probably require eminent domain and federal funding to get the land and housing needed to solve this problem.

http://www.portfolio.com/resources/Portfolio-2010-Metro-Area-Stress-Rank.pdf

2. Street-to-Jobs program- another hard one, but one of the ways to get homeless people off the street and give them help is to offer jobs doing things such as cleaning the streets and helping keep the city clean. Payment is housing and transportation, and maybe towards the end it helps them transition into a permanent situation.

3. Stop criminalizing homelessness- no brainer. You get arrested for loitering as a homeless person and now you have a criminal record keeping you from getting a job. So stop the laws making it hard for homeless people to get out of their condition or making them feel unwanted by society.

4. Charity- this is the last saftey net I can think of, but the community can only support so many people down on their luck in a bad economic condition. Increase charitable support in helping get these people off the streets and into jobs and houses and not have to burden the taxpayer any further.

WarOne wrote:

djones520 wrote:Huffpo's not exactly all that reliable a source IMO, but I don't at all doubt that their lifes are horrible. The city I grew up in had a decent sized homeless population, and it actually had real winters. We'd donate fresh salmon from our catches to the soup halls, and deer hides to local vendors that used them to make blankets for the homeless.

I'm not exactly sure what your driving at though. Are you upset at McDonalds for dropping the menu, or at San Fran for creating laws that chases the homeless off?

What do you suggest should be done?

Official stance: McDonald's can do what they want with their property and their products so long as it does not break a law. San Francisco is trying to enact laws to make sitting and lying on the streets a crime.

Solutions: Well, can't make McDonald's do something for the Greater Good so it is up to the municipality and charity of the region to help. So throw out that option.

1. Make housing affordable- this is the hardest but one of the best solutions to remove the homeless problem. Get people off the streets into affordable housing.

However, San Fran has highly unaffordable housing and therefore the effort of the city to solve this problem would probably require eminent domain and federal funding to get the land and housing needed to solve this problem.
***Its San Francisco. By its nature housing in unaffordable. Why should I have to pay for your crappy housing market and economy? Feth that. It’s a local issue.

2. Street-to-Jobs program- another hard one, but one of the ways to get homeless people off the street and give them help is to offer jobs doing things such as cleaning the streets and helping keep the city clean. Payment is housing and transportation, and maybe towards the end it helps them transition into a permanent situation.
***3 month’s aid if it’s a direct program. No more. That wouldn’t help ¾ of the homeless guys that have harassed me though.

3. Stop criminalizing homelessness- no brainer. You get arrested for loitering as a homeless person and now you have a criminal record keeping you from getting a job. So stop the laws making it hard for homeless people to get out of their condition or making them feel unwanted by society.
***No it is a brainer. I want them to feel unwanted. I want it to be nightmarish, and I also want an out for them. Frankly get a job or if you’re nuts get into an institution. It was do gooder BS to put raving nuts on the street instead of reforming institutional care. If I am ranting about Charlie in the trees I need help, likely long term help. And no I don’t want them around my kids or my wife.

4. Charity- this is the last saftey net I can think of, but the community can only support so many people down on their luck in a bad economic condition. Increase charitable support in helping get these people off the streets and into jobs and houses and not have to burden the taxpayer any further.
***Yep.

Is it bad that I agree with Frazz?

It shouldnt be the responsibility of the tax payer on any goverment level to support the homeless. If anything it should come from the non profits/church groups.

Frazzled wrote:Its San Francisco. By its nature housing in unaffordable. Why should I have to pay for your crappy housing market and economy? Feth that. It’s a local issue.

You LIVE in Texas Frazzled. The large structure of your state has the capacity to house the entire homeless population of the United States, arm them all with guns, or electrocute them all simultaneously in the penal system's electric chairs.

I think we can make it a national issue and have Texas lend a hand.

EDIT:

@Catyrpelius-
Well government sanctioned help costs $$, but it costs more money to throw these people in jail, AND you don't want to reach a boiling point where in you have roving bands of homeless people stalking the streets for food and such when economic conditions destroy the charity that could of helped them.

And the money goes to eliminate homeless and get people to become productive, not support the homeless. That is the purpose of the Street-to-Jobs program.

As is the case now, charity is limited in economic hardship and somehow these people need to go somewhere and to eat. I hate to go all liberal and such, but there has to be some societal responsibility to keep decent human beings from dying on the streets due to hunger.

WarOne wrote:

You LIVE in Texas Frazzled. The large structure of your state has the capacity to house the entire homeless population of the United States, arm them all with guns, or electrocute them all simultaneously in the penal system's electric chairs.

I think we can make it a national issue and have Texas lend a hand.

You want to give Texas a hoard of individuals whom are somewhat unstable and decidedly desperate, then arm them and threaten them with death if they get out of line?

With such an army, Mexico would be brought back into the fold in a matter of weeks, and the drug lords would be paraded through the streets before being burned on piles of their own product.

Were it not for the terrible fact that the New Texas Militia would then recruit the Mexican homeless and turn on the rest of the US, I too would support this notion.

Imagine the Russian conscripts, but crazy. And instead of General Winter, they would have someone akin to General Frazzled!

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its San Francisco. By its nature housing in unaffordable. Why should I have to pay for your crappy housing market and economy? Feth that. It’s a local issue.

You LIVE in Texas Frazzled. The large structure of your state has the capacity to house the entire homeless population of the United States, arm them all with guns, or electrocute them all simultaneously in the penal system's electric chairs.

I think we can make it a national issue and have Texas lend a hand.

No.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitzbitah wrote:

WarOne wrote:

You LIVE in Texas Frazzled. The large structure of your state has the capacity to house the entire homeless population of the United States, arm them all with guns, or electrocute them all simultaneously in the penal system's electric chairs.

I think we can make it a national issue and have Texas lend a hand.

You want to give Texas a hoard of individuals whom are somewhat unstable and decidedly desperate, then arm them and threaten them with death if they get out of line?

With such an army, Mexico would be brought back into the fold in a matter of weeks, and the drug lords would be paraded through the streets before being burned on piles of their own product.

Were it not for the terrible fact that the New Texas Militia would then recruit the Mexican homeless and turn on the rest of the US, I too would support this notion.

Imagine the Russian conscripts, but crazy. And instead of General Winter, they would have someone akin to General Frazzled!

Not neccessary the Weinie Legions are gathering. Soon the Time of Man will be over. The time of Dachsund will have begun.

WarOne wrote:

agnosto wrote:Where can they go?
It's a large city, there are numerous shelters, missions, etc.

http://sfhomeless.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Housing_-_Shelters_/_Transitional_Housing

Thank you, agnosto.

Now what to do about laws regarding the homeless in San Fran not being able to loiter. Do you think there are adequate shelters and places of rest for the homeless in SF to be able to enjoy all these services given these statistics:

There are 1,623 homeless kids in the San Francisco school system (SF Unified School Districts).
There are approximately 35,000 homeless people living in the Bay Area at a given time (SF Bay Area counties point-in-time counts).
30-40% of the Bay Area homeless are families (Association of Bay Area Governments). In Alameda County, families comprise 43% of the homeless population (EveryOne Home).
62% live on the streets during the night (Association of Bay Area Governments).
San Francisco has the highest per capita rate of homelessness of any major American city. 7,000 homeless people live in SF at a given time. Some estimates put the number as high as 15,000 (SF Plan to Abolish Chronic Homelessness).
Only 15% of the homeless in SF are from out of state. Another 15% are from out of the city. Over 60% of SF’s homeless are natives (SF Bay Area counties point-in-time counts).
The care of one chronically homeless person using Emergency Room services and/or incarceration costs SF an average of $61,000/yr, whereas permanent, supportive housing, with treatment and care, would cost around $16,000/yr. (SF Ten Year Plan to Abolish Chronic Homelessness)

http://sfhsc.org/site/statistics-and-educational-information/

Quite a bit there, strong feelings eh? Well, the first thing I learned when I began social work is that there's a difference between sympathy and empathy; one will allow you to do your job and help people and the other will drive you crazy and stress you out to the point where you are worthless.

As to your first bit about homeless children; McKinney Vento guidelines are extermely loose. More than 3/4 of those kids are actually living with a grandparent or other relative:

"(i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement;

(ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C));

(iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and

(iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii)."

Kid's parents lost their job and they moved into Grandpa's house for a few months, the school can request Title X, Part C funds. Heck, I've personally met this definition several times while growing up.

Another thing you learn in social work or government work is that numbers are inflated, especially when you're talking about a mobile group of people. Homeless person A shows up at a shelter for breakfast and gets counted and then is also counted at a different place for lunch and dinner (possibly). That's not to say that there isn't a problem but if these numbers were correct, half the country would be homeless.

Another point, every source you've sited has an agenda; they want to push the plight of these people in your face for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying it's bad but they have a reason to accept inflated numbers at face value.

Is homelessness a problem? Yes! Does the world owe these people a living? No! Families have access to housing assistance through Section 8 and medical assistance through Medicaid and food assistance through the SNAP program (formerly known as food stamps). All of these programs are available in the Bay area and throughout California.

ABAWDs (able bodied adults without dependents) have availability of food and other programs as well. It all depends on what services the state and locality offers. In Norman, Oklahoma there are agencies such as Food and Shelter for Friends, Health for Friends, Section 8 andf HUD housing, local shelters and more. People are generally on the streets for a variety of reasons, not all of which relate to availability of services.

agnosto wrote:Is homelessness a problem? Yes! Does the world owe these people a living? No!

Again agnosto, thank you for your input into the matter.

As to the quoted point above, that is where the problem is. How can we solve homelessness as a problem? How do we define the problem?

Examples:

While we do not owe homeless people a living, those who do not want to be homeless but find their situation difficult to get out of it must have avenues to which he/she can be helped to get out of it.

Those who remain homeless because they choose to are another matter entirely. They do not need help if they made this decision on their own merits without a condition holding them back.

Children who become homeless with their parents must be helped in some way.

People with illness mental or physical that causes them to be homeless need help one way or another as well.

Would you want to completely negate any governmental help for people with homelessness when charity is insufficient to help?

WarOne wrote:

agnosto wrote:Is homelessness a problem? Yes! Does the world owe these people a living? No!

Again agnosto, thank you for your input into the matter.

As to the quoted point above, that is where the problem is. How can we solve homelessness as a problem? How do we define the problem?

Examples:

While we do not owe homeless people a living, those who do not want to be homeless but find their situation difficult to get out of it must have avenues to which he/she can be helped to get out of it.

Those who remain homeless because they choose to are another matter entirely. They do not need help if they made this decision on their own merits without a condition holding them back.

Children who become homeless with their parents must be helped in some way.

People with illness mental or physical that causes them to be homeless need help one way or another as well.

Would you want to completely negate any governmental help for people with homelessness when charity is insufficient to help?

Just to play Devil's advocate:
How about: people who are homeless are drafted into road work crews. If they do a bad job they get cemented.
Alternatively, as noted, penal legions. Unleash the might of the truly unwashed upon the Mexican cartels or Canada.

As a homeless guy who still manages to hold a gakky job I can note that there are places you can stay in your car but they are few and far between, and cops will hound you regardless. I don't get why if a public park is "closed" after sundown that I can't sleep in my car there in a corner of the parking lot. Who the hell does it hurt exactly? I've never asked anyone for money and I don't plan on it. I dunno. I just don't get what the "right" thing to do is when your homeless except trying to find a willing room mate.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:As a homeless guy who still manages to hold a gakky job I can note that there are places you can stay in your car but they are few and far between, and cops will hound you regardless. I don't get why if a public park is "closed" after sundown that I can't sleep in my car there in a corner of the parking lot. Who the hell does it hurt exactly? I've never asked anyone for money and I don't plan on it. I dunno. I just don't get what the "right" thing to do is when your homeless except trying to find a willing room mate.

I hate to use you Cannerus against Frazzled like this given your current living conditions but...

how about show a little love for a fellow Texan, Frazzled? What would your advice be to this gentleman?

If some people want to be homeless, and charities are willing to feed and clothe them, I don't see the problem.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:As a homeless guy who still manages to hold a gakky job I can note that there are places you can stay in your car but they are few and far between, and cops will hound you regardless. I don't get why if a public park is "closed" after sundown that I can't sleep in my car there in a corner of the parking lot. Who the hell does it hurt exactly? I've never asked anyone for money and I don't plan on it. I dunno. I just don't get what the "right" thing to do is when your homeless except trying to find a willing room mate.

Its not to protect you. Its to protect against crimes occurring, like drug dealing, rapes, etc. Not saying I agree with that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:As a homeless guy who still manages to hold a gakky job I can note that there are places you can stay in your car but they are few and far between, and cops will hound you regardless. I don't get why if a public park is "closed" after sundown that I can't sleep in my car there in a corner of the parking lot. Who the hell does it hurt exactly? I've never asked anyone for money and I don't plan on it. I dunno. I just don't get what the "right" thing to do is when your homeless except trying to find a willing room mate.

I hate to use you Cannerus against Frazzled like this given your current living conditions but...

how about show a little love for a fellow Texan, Frazzled? What would your advice be to this gentleman?

Is Cannerus a Texan? There are lots of RV parks for operation Cannerus (see other thread).

Any homeless in California that are between 18-25 could join the California Conservation Corps

http://www.ccc.ca.gov/join/Pages/basicqual.aspx