In part agree with Cody. Years ago a news reporter and some officials went under the bridges here where the homeless lived. They were offered jobs, and other assistance . Refused by all. They were not addicts or drunks- at that time. Their reasons varied ,butnot being ruled by the System was one that stood out. The homeless here have been relocated to other areas. Bridges, and store fronts are not options for them anymore, but sure they try. Texas will soon look the same I fear if the illegals are allowed to stay. Oh but wait..... Naw we will house and feed them and let our own be arrested for sleeping under a bridge. Welcome to America
The cities here have a homeless problem--Anchorage being the worst. I can understand being homeless in LA, SF, or Seattle, but why Anchorage, or even worse, Fairbanks? Much of it is drug and alcohol-related, but there are those, as @Cody Fousnaugh said, who choose the lifestyle. They will take free housing and food if no strings are attached, but if they have to be sober or clean, they reject it out of hand and choose the tents instead. I guess it is a freedom thing. Those who choose to be homeless are almost all men, the women and families seldom if ever choose the life on the street. For quite a number of years, only registered "homeless shelters" could accept residents overnight, but in the last couple years churches and community organizations are allowed to accept overnight guests if the temperature is below a certain number (20 degrees F., I believe). Fairbanks is worse, as the winter temps often drop to -60 F. People in tents and sleeping bags sometimes don't survive if they are not found and reported to police. As far as California goes, I think permissive laws, high housing costs, and common drug use are the biggest factors. In places like San Francisco, defecating and urinating on the public sidewalk is tolerated. It apparently is the city's job to clean it up, and sometimes they succeed.... Where it is tolerated and supported, homelessness thrives. The more that is done to improve the lives of the homeless, the more people congregate. There have always been homeless folks, but now they are tolerated and supported, which makes it somewhat easier.
@Bess Barber During the Reagan Recession my wife and I, of necessity, did just that, except our box was a plywood gambrel-roofed (barn-type) "cabin" of size 16 feet by 40 feet, having 2 floors, bottom (dirt), 2nd. plywood-floored living quarters. One room. No electricity, nor water; we hauled water twice weekly from town, 23 miles each way. Our sole income was $450 per month, obtained from a 2nd. mortgage we carried for the guy who bought our home in Phoenix. No telephone service. Outdoor crapper. Good milk goat, 7 laying hens, rocky ground, no planting area, too cold anyway, altitude 6700 feet. Energy source firewood, Pinon Pine and Juniper aplenty, heating stove downstairs, our cookstove up. Possibly the best year of our 40 together. Unable to secure work to keep up our home loan, having already bought the 40 acres in the woods, we became "homeless" by choice, but lived in a shack which I built myself. We became destitute "through no fault of our own"........ Frank
@Beth Gallagher But perhaps the percentage of such "deficients", lacking a more suitable word off the top, is no different among the homeless, than the "homed" general population. And by the way, why haven't the authorities stopped all this drug use?? Frank
Do you honestly believe that "authorities" can cure drug addiction or solve the problem of drug use? Should they incarcerate them or what? Apparently Seattle's plan is to hand out clean hypodermic needles to prevent cross-contamination. How's that for a solution?
@Beth Gallagher Ha, Ha! I surely thought you would see the facetiousness behind my question! Of all people, I despise vigorously the concept and laws aimed at stopping drug use while in fact private property confiscation, including money, is being used to bolster up burgeoning law enforcement costs, under the guise of "War on Drugs". Cross-contamination? If I were a drug user, I would snort in contempt at "clean" needles given away by government, suspecting they might very well be intentionally-infected.......any idea how much welfare cost might be eased up by getting rid of the AIDS victims being treated at public cost? "The most recent published estimate of lifetime HIV treatment costs was $367,134 (in 2009 dollars; $379,668 in 2010 dollars).Mar 8, 2017" See: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/programresources/guidance/costeffectiveness/index.html
I have gone to LV at least 2 times a year for the last 6 years Do relise the homeless stay in the storm drains but I think a lot fewer that Cal. I have seen and I have seen in London people sleeping on the streets in day time but very few. So why so many in San Fran and LA?
Law Enforcement don't like to hassle with them (homeless), because different law enforcement agencies have been sued for what homeless advocates call "hassling" them. It's pretty obvious that homeowners in nice areas don't want homeless folks setting up camps in those areas, just those same homeowners don't want any Strip Clubs or X-rated video stores in their area.
Homelessness may not be directly linked to welfare, but I was totally surprised when I found California NOT included in the states paying out the most per capita: What state has the most people on welfare? Here are the top 10 states that spend the most on welfare per capita, according to GoBankingRates.com. 1. New York Welfare spending per capita: $3,305 Total public welfare expenditures: $19.85 billion Fact: New York has the fifth-highest cost of living in the country. 2. Alaska Welfare spending per capita: $3,020 Total public welfare expenditures: $2.23 billion Fact: Alaska is one of the least populous states, and its total public welfare spending is actually the sixth-lowest of all the states – even though its spending per capita is ranked No. 2. 3. Massachusetts Welfare spending per capita: $2,911 Total public welfare expenditures: $19.97 billion Fact: The percentage of Massachusetts households that lived in poverty during 2016-17 is 10.1 percent. Massachusetts is also the fourth-most expensive state to live in. 4. Vermont Welfare spending per capita: $2,842 Total public welfare expenditures: $1.77 billion Fact: Although Vermont’s welfare spending per capita is high, its total welfare spending is the fifth-lowest of all the states, which is likely due to its low population. 5. Minnesota Welfare spending per capita: $2,805 Total public welfare expenditures: $15.64 billion Fact: Minnesota is among the top five states that spend the most on welfare per capita, and it’s among the top 15 with the highest total public welfare expenditures. 6. New Mexico Welfare spending per capita: $2,741 Total public welfare expenditures: $5.72 billion Fact: New Mexico has the third-highest poverty rate in America at 18.2 percent. 7. Delaware Welfare spending per capita: $2,544 Total public welfare expenditures: $2.45 billion Fact: Per capita spending in Delaware is among the highest, but the state’s total welfare expenditures are the seventh-lowest of all the states. This is likely because it’s the sixth-least populous state. 8. Maine Welfare spending per capita: $2,530 Total public welfare expenditures: $3.38 billion Fact: Maine is one of the states that spends the most on welfare per capita. However, it’s among the top 15 states with the lowest total public welfare expenditures. 9. Oregon Welfare spending per capita: $2,520 Total public welfare expenditures: $10.44 billion Fact: Although Oregon spends a lot on welfare compared to other states, it’s not one of the best states for poor Americans, a separate GOBankingRates study found. This is due to an overall high cost of living, high crime rates and a lack of affordable housing. 10. Kentucky Welfare spending per capita: $2,517 Total public welfare expenditures: $11.21 billion Fact: The poverty rate in Kentucky is 14.8 percent – tied for the seventh-highest of all the states – which could account for its high welfare spending per capita. We applied for Food Stamps once, while out of work and living in a cabin in the woods. The Welfare Office, located in the middle of Arizona's Navajo and Apache Indian lands, was run by a Mr. Sandoval, with whom I requested a meeting after a clerk turned down our request. This bastard had the NERVE to tell me, politely, I was turned down "because my skin was the wrong color"! Frank
When I lived in Arizona, my x-wife wanted to apply for a small business loan and was turned down. Unknown to her at the time, I had a kind of a friend who worked in the business and he told me that if a person was first a female of color (black, Latino or Native American in that order) and with child they stood a better chance of getting a loan than a white male or female. Of course, that was quite a few years ago but it still falls along the lines of your application for food assistance.