|
Post by vosa on Mar 23, 2024 1:15:10 GMT -5
In 2022, volunteers counted about 1,600 people living on Baltimore City streets. Nearly 70% were men, about 75% self-identified as Black and a quarter were considered chronically homeless — which means they have been without shelter for more than a year.
The next mayor could form a committee of his/her most generous donors and send them on a trip to Seattle at taxpayers' expense.
They could take in a Mariner's game, visit the Pike Place Market and the Seattle Space Needle and maybe spend some time with Seattle city officials to see if something like micro-apartments for the homeless might work in Harm City.
Hey, if Sheila "The Shoe" Dixon is elected she could finance the trip by using gift cards that have been donated to City Hall for charity.
|
|
|
Post by augustwest on Mar 26, 2024 20:31:01 GMT -5
What a hoot. Homelessness is so funny!
But yes our country could afford to house the homeless and treat the underlying causes. Unfortunately doing either one without the other is just a temporary solution at best.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Mar 27, 2024 6:33:15 GMT -5
Gotta love the OP snark.
I've written two articles in local magazines on the homeless here in Frederick. I've interviewed several homeless folks. Affordable housing won't solve homelessness...it may decrease the number of people on the street, but mental illness and vagabond lifestyle these folks prefer won't be solved by a small, cheap house. Many of them don't even want a warm bed to sleep in at night at shelters. They fear illness and they don't like the other people in the shelter. So I think we should always be looking at alternatives and increase funding in mental health sectors but I think homelessness will be here to stay.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Mar 27, 2024 15:22:15 GMT -5
Gotta love the OP snark. I've written two articles in local magazines on the homeless here in Frederick. I've interviewed several homeless folks. Affordable housing won't solve homelessness...it may decrease the number of people on the street, but mental illness and vagabond lifestyle these folks prefer won't be solved by a small, cheap house. Many of them don't even want a warm bed to sleep in at night at shelters. They fear illness and they don't like the other people in the shelter. So I think we should always be looking at alternatives and increase funding in mental health sectors but I think homelessness will be here to stay. This is not the first time that I have heard that some people prefer to be left to their own devices and pretty much shun others. And yeah, many are not working with a full deck. So yes, additional mental health funding and resources is needed. But here is the problem. As we all know, thanks to Reagen, and the resultant closing of resident mental hospitals, (they used to call them sanitariums). And the advent of outpatient, local, treatment...... which as we have witnessed..... is a failure in getting the most troubled help. So since 'we' are relegated to outpatient, and the fact that a good portion of those that need help ^ don't want to be on somebody elses schedule, or always showing up, or being near people, or the scary confines of a building for the most part ...... yah think throwing money at it for services that will go unused is a good idea? Now, if these people were brought in, confined so to speak, and treated maybe that will work. But I am sure somebody will start screaming that is a Constitutional infringement. Even if it is to HELP THAT PERSON. Classic damned if you do damned if you don't.
|
|