This sort of thing isn't really new. Like, at least it isn't 100 years ago and we aren't sending the homeless to work camps anymore. I can see why a move like that might be considered good from the perspective of some state congressmen who's never left the suburbs, but that says more about the congressmen than it does the acceptability of their plan.
But of course, what we really need is an easier route to section 8 housing and better mental healthcare. The out of sight, out of mind move they are pulling is weak.
Also... i'd be careful using that site as a reference in the future. Like seriously, the front page reads like it was written by one of these homeless guys.
The trick of it is, whatever city treats homeless people best gets
all the homeless showing up. If you were to spend a billion dollars to get everyone in your city a place to live and three square meals a day and it all worked perfectly -- you'd still have homeless people in your city a month later, because you'd be the city that takes care of people, and Greyhound tickets out of Dodge are cheap. So no one wants to be the first place to solve the problem. Almost seems like a good enough reason to get feds involved somehow -- carve out a district in Nevada or something. In fact...... whoever wrote that said FEMA, so..... I'm gonna do my find-the-bill thing.
*time passes*
Alright, so via
Huffing-and-Puffington Post, I found
the explanation and background of the plan. Note that the camp is a temporary countermeasure to what's described as "An acute emergency" relating to public safety in commercial districts. Also note that the permanent measure has exactly four months to be solved, and the permanent solution "
Cannot be centered at emergency shelter site" (their emphasis), and that "
NO PERSON WILL BE SUBJECT TO ANY LAW IN A MANNER THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER CITIZEN" (their emphasis). It is true however that there will be "
NO FOOT TRAFFIC. PERIOD." (their emphasis), and that a police officer will "monitor and control" foot traffic avenues in order to enforce that rule (3 service vans will be operating to bring in supplies and, presumably, more "people in need of help").
So, mixed bag. Haven't located the actual bill they voted on yet, but that's the presentation of the response. Let's see if I can't dig up the actual document.....
*time passes*
Nope. City Council website had lots of agreement contracts with United Way Midlands detailing their financial obligations, but it looks like that PDF linked above is the best (most readable) outline of the plan, so..... yep. That's the deal. Apparently not done with fed money, though, so that wasn't a fruitless search.
