Jump to content

Austin Homeless Free for All Ordinance


rage-a-holic

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Pasken said:

You guys crying about rep points now?

Not at all.  Crying is your domain.

We are, however, laughing.

So thanks, I guess. Your butthurt is delectable.

iu.jpeg

Edited by Cajun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pasken said:

I’m also glad you don’t live in austin. Time for the rest of you to leave until it’s too late and homeless socialism swallows your home and family!

if we leave, who's going to pay the bill? You? 

Why do you hate teachers? Why do you hate working people trying to make a living? Why do you hate giving health care to families? Why do you forsake them to give $27k to any shithead leech who shows up at the city limits? 

What's wrong with you?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Not at all.  Crying is your domain.

We are, however, laughing.

So thanks, I guess. Your butthurt is delectable.

iu.jpeg

Lol. What a moron. Yea I’m the but hurt one. Keep complaining about rep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lobo
25 minutes ago, Pasken said:

I’m also glad you don’t live in austin. Time for the rest of you to leave until it’s too late and homeless socialism swallows your home and family!

Wait, are the homeless the ones coming to take our guns and perform abortions?  I thought that was the socialist government?  

I honestly forget which side I'm on most days.  Almost everybody at every level of government over me is an incompetent grifter.  

noCR/ I would be perfectly happy throwing Adler, Casar, Cruz, and Dan Patrick in a water well with a single knife down there and letting them battle it out to the death while the rest of us laughed.  I'd take a shit on each corpse as a warning to others.  The cocksucking thieves in government used to have the decency to be smart about it all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, crash_davis said:

i'm laughing at the absolute bullshit absurdity of this bullshit, cause what else can you do. working people are fighting for livable wages but dipshits will bend over backwards to give homeless people free social services totaling $18k each. these people are homeless. they don't work. they don't give back to the community. other than taxes for cigarettes, booze, and other trivial shit, they pay no taxes. they are leeches. and 42% of the assholes in this city want to give these leeches $18k a year. 

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/homeless/austin-homeless-camp-city-approved/269-938d8e4e-1a8b-4868-a4ec-b71336d0d735

again, the 42% should pay for all of this, cause fuck you.

the city leaders just raised another fucking WELCOME HOMELESS EVERYWHERE TO AUSTIN sign. this shit is only going to get worse.

de704cd0-3198-4270-8a71-12cb7db7ceac_192

 

 

Lmfao

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

if we leave, who's going to pay the bill? You? 

Why do you hate teachers? Why do you hate working people trying to make a living? Why do you hate giving health care to families? Why do you forsake them to give $27k to any shithead leech who shows up at the city limits? 

What's wrong with you?

He’s compassionate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the hilarious thing is we could probably pay to help them out for 3 or 4 months(not the stupid plan above but a more reasonable smart one)  if we weren't

buying hotels, building a chunnel and rail lines that won't be used, paying MILLIONS for people to buy apartments on a rail line, supporting stupid fucking art programs, creating a redundant 2nd high paying job to oversee police, some stupid Equity Department or contracting companies to do "development surveys" so that we can destroy evil single family home neighborhoods.

there is a reason they want 10 to 15 "camps" all over the city.  they don't want people to see the actual number in one or 2 spots.  they know its way more than being reported.

This needs to be helpful but not ANOTHER fucking neon sign that says "Send Your Homeless Here".  People need to see it and say "yeah I think I will stay homeless where I'm at".

We are absolutely going to need to send some folks packing and get them on their way.

These dumbasses on the city council need to do their fucking job and make some hard decisions on what is important and what isn't and quit just asking for more money.  The city probably needs only half the salaried employees it actually pays for and we do stupid shit like voting for MORE over paid salaried employees.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pasken said:

Lol. What a moron. Yea I’m the but hurt one. Keep complaining about rep.

Like clockwork.

So the guy who neg reps lectures the guy who never neg reps about "crying" over rep?

Again, thanks for the laughs.

Edited by Cajun
And you spelled "butthurt" wrong, but that's natural.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Connected Developers look at you lot the same way you lot look at the homeless. 

Hyper-gentrification is a rude awakening for many who don't know they are in the cross-hairs. Every complaint of yours will be labeled NIMBYISM (New Urbanism code for "We must get the old luddites out of here.").  

You guys should read the playbook sometime.  https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/charter-new-urbanism

My biggest complaint about New Urbanism is the fact they gave the playbook to developers as cover. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cajun said:

That's a lot of words to say "We think cities should be Citadel Cities without homeless, poor, working class and middle class people who aren't enlightened like us, but hey, who am I to judge?

Modified for clarity.

The homeless are just a diversionary tactic to keep your focus away from what is really going on.

Read the Charter and see what has already become normalized in Austin and around the country. Denver is a prime example. Knowledge is power. 

Now before the New Urbanism Oracles come looking for me because of my heresy, good luck Austin and thanks for all the fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@washparkhorn

What they think and what they are gonna get/are getting are two vastly different things.

These aren't some people blessed with super intelligence.  They are losers riding a temporary wave of utter dipshittery.   Now, I'll give you that it's a big wave.  There's another big wave out there somewhere and once theirs dies, and it will, they will be erased by its power coming the opposite direction.  

 

Edited by Cajun
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just sayin...

The average cost to house an inmate in Texas prisons is $47.50 per day, according to Michelle Lyons, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Thus it would cost about $17,340 to house an inmate for a year.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

Just sayin...

The average cost to house an inmate in Texas prisons is $47.50 per day, according to Michelle Lyons, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Thus it would cost about $17,340 to house an inmate for a year.

so put em in jail!  It's cheaper!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, williemackgarza said:

So voters clearly say gtfo to the homeless.
Council says, hold my beer?

Well it’s important to try everything that has been proven not to work/solve the problem several times. I mean they had grand plans for Hotel Hell to built by 2024. Why can’t we recall Addled and his band of Cidiots (city idiots)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, crash_davis said:

i'm laughing at the absolute bullshit absurdity of this bullshit, cause what else can you do. working people are fighting for livable wages but dipshits will bend over backwards to give homeless people free social services totaling $18k each. these people are homeless. they don't work. they don't give back to the community. other than taxes for cigarettes, booze, and other trivial shit, they pay no taxes. they are leeches. and 42% of the assholes in this city want to give these leeches $18k a year. 

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/homeless/austin-homeless-camp-city-approved/269-938d8e4e-1a8b-4868-a4ec-b71336d0d735

again, the 42% should pay for all of this, cause fuck you.

the city leaders just raised another fucking WELCOME HOMELESS EVERYWHERE TO AUSTIN sign. this shit is only going to get worse.

de704cd0-3198-4270-8a71-12cb7db7ceac_192

 

 

 

Now I see why so many people are fleeing to the burbs and rural Texas. Why invest in the future of your city when you can throw millions at people who generate negative revenue?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HRSchenker said:

 

Now I see why so many people are fleeing to the burbs and rural Texas. Why invest in the future of your city when you can throw millions at people who generate negative revenue?

Solution - invest in efficient intervention. Win/Win.

Meanwhile - the well-connected will continue to steal the seed-corn out the backdoor while you are distracted with solvable problems. Extremely inefficient. Negative externalities fester and spread (for those of you actually worried about saving money).  

Good thing Fitlump is ready to save the day. 

TLDR - Work the problem. 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 6:52 PM, Shaggybevo said:

Hilarious that people blame Adler/Casar for the homeless camps.  

Don't blame Adler/Casar, blame the people that voted for them. Adler won with 60% of the vote and Casar won with 66% of the vote.  Both won landslide victories.  I saw "Vote Against Prop B" yard signs in central Austin. 

Adler is a different matter, but Greg Casar is great in his district in a way that the rest of the city has no awareness of. They love him, for good reasons, and it has nothing to do with any of this. He’ll be in that seat as long as he wants it. 

11 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Connected Developers look at you lot the same way you lot look at the homeless. 

Hyper-gentrification is a rude awakening for many who don't know they are in the cross-hairs. Every complaint of yours will be labeled NIMBYISM (New Urbanism code for "We must get the old luddites out of here.").  

You guys should read the playbook sometime.  https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/charter-new-urbanism

My biggest complaint about New Urbanism is the fact they gave the playbook to developers as cover. 

Lolz evil developers.  
I’m no Urbanist, but putting your neighborhood under glass like Lenin’s corpse isn’t an affordability strategy.
 

It’s the housing shortage, stupid. in Central Austin as in much of Denver. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the story of the dog who caught the car continues

I almost feel bad for her. It’s like she’s slowly coming to realize that the bad faith actors and demagogues are more invested in the problem than solving it. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all Casar.  He wanted to "show everyone the homeless", create the problem/make it worse, and then ask for a bunch of money to fix it.  He's a communist, nothing more nothing less.  the plan is working perfectly in his mind.  of course, he will keep getting re-elected in his district.

I believe the city owned Home Depot is in his district.  has he pushed using it to create an area to house many of them?  maybe he has and I missed it.  no reason to have 10 different areas just 3 North/Central/South.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It’s an affordable housing shortage, stupid. in Central Austin as in much of Denver. 

All urban areas share that problem presently. The playbook never worked.  Yet planning departments treat the as the Bible of good development. There are other options. You know that. 

Presently, work from is a transformative development that opens up options in housing.

There is not much Austin can do until the rest of the region responds to the demand surge. 

Texas is a region that should be more oriented to the West, not the South. The mixed loyalty of some to South is holding Texas back. Texas is not the South. No Texan would ever agree to that proposition.

What are the mechanisms needed to reduce the number of people entering a cycle of housing precarity? Nip them in the bud. It is much cheaper. 

I would love to hear your big ideas on the housing precarity issue and the housing shortage problem.

Spoiler

And ignore the brutes (some of you lot are, admit it). Most of it is just Punch and Judy - a cathartic release of pressure as this set and other sets of problems are on auto-repeat failure to solve. It can be quite entertaining - as satire. A Blazing Saddles for those stuck in 1975. It masks a lot of pain and disappointment. They deserve solutions to their anxieties as well. 

Give us some wisdom BC.

And would someone tell me what happened to Tahoe? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

He's a communist

Ron Burgundy Saying "I Don't Believe You" | Gifrific

Hyperbole and Humorous Contention. But Commies don't exist - even in so-called communist nations. They joined the capitalist gang. after they learned capitalism pays a lot more. And some are kicking our ass in the capitalist markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Ron Burgundy Saying "I Don't Believe You" | Gifrific

Hyperbole and Humorous Contention. But Commies don't exist - even in so-called communist nations. They joined the capitalist gang. after they learned capitalism pays a lot more. And some are kicking our ass in the capitalist markets.

That’s because the former commies have even less ethics than us crony capitalists.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pasken said:

Oh how clever. Your totally the first person to make that joke. You’re so clever. 

You're

As in, "You're batting .500 grammatically in that statement".

Edited by Cajun
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

 

All urban areas share that problem presently. The playbook never worked.  Yet planning departments treat the as the Bible of good development. There are other options. You know that. 

Presently, work from is a transformative development that opens up options in housing.

There is not much Austin can do until the rest of the region responds to the demand surge. 

Texas is a region that should be more oriented to the West, not the South. The mixed loyalty of some to South is holding Texas back. Texas is not the South. No Texan would ever agree to that proposition.

What are the mechanisms needed to reduce the number of people entering a cycle of housing precarity? Nip them in the bud. It is much cheaper. 

I would love to hear your big ideas on the housing precarity issue and the housing shortage problem.

  Hide contents

And ignore the brutes (some of you lot are, admit it). Most of it is just Punch and Judy - a cathartic release of pressure as this set and other sets of problems are on auto-repeat failure to solve. It can be quite entertaining - as satire. A Blazing Saddles for those stuck in 1975. It masks a lot of pain and disappointment. They deserve solutions to their anxieties as well. 

Give us some wisdom BC.

And would someone tell me what happened to Tahoe? 

Just to be clear, it's a full spectrum housing shortage, not primarily an affordable housing shortage. There's an affordability problem, but that's caused by the downfiltering of demand - upper income people locked out of traditionally affluent areas by shortage taking their money to middle class neighborhoods, and middle class people taking that money to working class neighborhoods or the suburbs, and working class people being pushed out of town.

There are three major contributing factors to the broad spectrum loss of housing affordability in American cities:
1) Unprecedented long expansion and cheap liquidity

2) Rising income inequality and wages stagnation encouraged by the tax code, with the middle class taking an decreasing share of productivity gains and 

3)  Local zoning that prevents close-in neighborhoods from adding housing close to jobs/transit and responding to increased demand - minimum lot sizes, low maximum occupancy, high parking minimums, massive obstruction of small-form multi-family (4-6 units), opposition to programmatic affordable housing in high opportunity areas etc. Essentially the package of local rules that came in when court decisions began to overturn the private covenants that kept blacks and working class people out of white neighborhoods.

#3 is the only one that state/local governments can respond to.

And ironically - it's generally self-styled progressives who lead the resistance to change on #3, to stop evil developers. But the thing is - development is not the mechanism of gentrification. The mechanism of gentrification is zoning.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 9:25 AM, Paco said:

Fucking meals and laundry. Holy holy shit.

This is how we did laundry at Marine boot camp. Guess it's too inhumane for our unsheltered brethren.8e000b07a2df720ed259164771f663c5.jpg

"Pass the detergent, Recruit!"

I'm triggered!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 9:25 AM, Paco said:

Fucking meals and laundry. Holy holy shit.

This is how we did laundry at Marine boot camp. Guess it's too inhumane for our unsheltered brethren.8e000b07a2df720ed259164771f663c5.jpg

In the Army, we used washing machines and dryers in basic training, but we understand that was probably too advanced for you all to master.

I have to admit, we were envious of the Air Force, who probably had their servants wash their clothes.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

3)  Local zoning that prevents close-in neighborhoods from adding housing close to jobs/transit and responding to increased demand - minimum lot sizes, low maximum occupancy, high parking minimums, massive obstruction of small-form multi-family (4-6 units), opposition to programmatic affordable housing in high opportunity areas etc. Essentially the package of local rules that came in when court decisions began to overturn the private covenants that kept blacks and working class people out of white neighborhoods.

#3 is the only one that state/local governments can respond to.

And ironically - it's generally self-styled progressives who lead the resistance to change on #3, to stop evil developers. But the thing is - development is not the mechanism of gentrification. The mechanism of gentrification is zoning.

I've noticed a lot of this in DFW burbs. There is massive resistance to density by P&Z boards, even in cases where developers meet codes but commissioners are allegedly worried about the resale value of their home. Forney is a great example of this phenomenon. Massive resistance to growth or really any sort of change. The demand is for more roads and existing expansion despite overwhelming evidence that this will make things worse. They just went through a city council election and the pro-growth candidates were demolished. I've thought about selling my rental property there only because I fear the direction that city is heading towards.

I would say that it's progressives and conservatives that are leading the charge just from my observation. The progressives do it by getting neighborhoods "historical" designations and protections. The conservatives do it by getting people riled up about the equity of their home under threat. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

 

All urban areas share that problem presently. The playbook never worked.  Yet planning departments treat the as the Bible of good development. There are other options. You know that. 

Presently, work from is a transformative development that opens up options in housing.

There is not much Austin can do until the rest of the region responds to the demand surge. 

Texas is a region that should be more oriented to the West, not the South. The mixed loyalty of some to South is holding Texas back. Texas is not the South. No Texan would ever agree to that proposition.

What are the mechanisms needed to reduce the number of people entering a cycle of housing precarity? Nip them in the bud. It is much cheaper. 

I would love to hear your big ideas on the housing precarity issue and the housing shortage problem.

  Reveal hidden contents

And ignore the brutes (some of you lot are, admit it). Most of it is just Punch and Judy - a cathartic release of pressure as this set and other sets of problems are on auto-repeat failure to solve. It can be quite entertaining - as satire. A Blazing Saddles for those stuck in 1975. It masks a lot of pain and disappointment. They deserve solutions to their anxieties as well. 

Give us some wisdom BC.

And would someone tell me what happened to Tahoe? 

It (“it” being a fully-committed Housing First initiative) worked in Houston. It worked in Utah as well, until they stopped funding it. But that’s just for homelessness, and as BC notes the housing crisis hits the whole spectrum of housing. Most cities are unable to viably address housing on their own, and there is rarely any regional or state cooperation.  

Edited by We’reTexas
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Just to be clear, it's a full spectrum housing shortage, not primarily an affordable housing shortage. There's an affordability problem, but that's caused by the downfiltering of demand - upper income people locked out of traditionally affluent areas by shortage taking their money to middle class neighborhoods, and middle class people taking that money to working class neighborhoods or the suburbs, and working class people being pushed out of town.

There are three major contributing factors to the broad spectrum loss of housing affordability in American cities:
1) Unprecedented long expansion and cheap liquidity

2) Rising income inequality and wages stagnation encouraged by the tax code, with the middle class taking an decreasing share of productivity gains and 

3)  Local zoning that prevents close-in neighborhoods from adding housing close to jobs/transit and responding to increased demand - minimum lot sizes, low maximum occupancy, high parking minimums, massive obstruction of small-form multi-family (4-6 units), opposition to programmatic affordable housing in high opportunity areas etc. Essentially the package of local rules that came in when court decisions began to overturn the private covenants that kept blacks and working class people out of white neighborhoods.

#3 is the only one that state/local governments can respond to.

And ironically - it's generally self-styled progressives who lead the resistance to change on #3, to stop evil developers. But the thing is - development is not the mechanism of gentrification. The mechanism of gentrification is zoning.

plenty of minorities in my "white" neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 9:00 PM, crash_davis said:

i'm laughing at the absolute bullshit absurdity of this bullshit, cause what else can you do. working people are fighting for livable wages but dipshits will bend over backwards to give homeless people free social services totaling $18k each. these people are homeless. they don't work. they don't give back to the community. other than taxes for cigarettes, booze, and other trivial shit, they pay no taxes. they are leeches. and 42% of the assholes in this city want to give these leeches $18k a year. 

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/homeless/austin-homeless-camp-city-approved/269-938d8e4e-1a8b-4868-a4ec-b71336d0d735

again, the 42% should pay for all of this, cause fuck you.

the city leaders just raised another fucking WELCOME HOMELESS EVERYWHERE TO AUSTIN sign. this shit is only going to get worse.

de704cd0-3198-4270-8a71-12cb7db7ceac_192

 

Seriously, laundry should not be on the list neither should meals.  For the last two year a majority of the homeless have been sleeping under overpasses, parks and woods all over the city without these handouts but now they are framing it as it will cost MORE to provide social services that we were already providing?  Shit this seem like you could service more people in a more secure location making it cost LESS per person.  $150k a year to be in charge of a SINGLE homeless camp?  How does one get that job?  Sound like 1 person could “managed” multiple sites for far less because their is no way the market would support that salary.

I get lighting and security for liability purposes (something the city should be concerned about).  Trash, showers and restrooms because it’s the humane thing to do.  Looks like it would take about $600k a year which is far less than that ridiculous number they are floating.  And if you use these same numbers for the 100 person camp it only increases by $40k.

This is just getting more and more ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

$150k a year to be in charge of a SINGLE homeless camp?  How does one get that job?  Sound like 1 person could “managed” multiple sites for far less because their is no way the market would support that salary.

Damn, I had the exact opposite read on that. Not a chance in hell I’m dealing with one of those camps for that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I keep going back to this but throwing tax payer money on this homeless shit is infuriating, especially when we have many other community issues to address. Case in point, funding for teachers. This is an AISD decision but shit like this could be addressed if the city funded shit that mattered. Instead we want to spend 100s of millions on coddling leeches because it makes some people feel good.

https://www.kxan.com/investigations/decision-is-final-austin-isd-will-no-longer-allow-ptas-to-fund-staff-positions-due-to-equity-concerns/

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...