On 2018-03-13 19:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/13/2018 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:


Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't have one --
at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic matter.


The solution would be our country becoming more conservative. Work
requirements for welfare, less unconditional free stuff, and so on.
The difference in the rate of homelessness in liberal versus
conservative states is striking and Oregon looks worse than even
California (which I hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest...ess-state-2012


Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of hermits and
loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and the low amount of
regulations and little enforcement allows them to spend their days
baking in a dilapidated trailer out in the desert.

The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High tax
states make housing so expensive that too many people are forced to
drop out into the streets. California is a prime example of that. Try
getting a building permit out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism
does not work.

I've looked for data proving that conservative politics cures
homelessness. I haven't found it yet. Give me a link if you have one.


I just did in my answer to Jay.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...114-story.html

It is less about conservative principles reducing homelessness (although
some do, as pointed out) but more about how liberal priniciples such as
free spending foster homelessness. Because they do.


Regarding your little list of cities, I suspect the differences in rates
may be caused by other factors. Not that politics has negligible effect
- but how about weather? If I were a bum with no family connections, I
might easily decide that sleeping outside in California or Oregon beats
sleeping where the wind chill goes into negative Fahrenheit. (A song
from _Midnight Cowboy_ mentioned "Going where the weather suits my
clothes.")

And big cities are probably easier than tiny towns as sources for
shelter of all kinds, sources of temporary jobs, blending into crowds,
etc. If there's a homeless person in my little village of 3000 (which
one poster mocked as "Mayberry") I certainly don't know about him.

I get very skeptical of people who think their political ideology is the
answer to every problem. Except, as several others have pointed out, you
abandon your conservative principles when you whine for bike ghettos.
You suddenly lose your courage and individualism, and want to socially
engineer people's transportation choice by spending tax funds.


Nonsense. I want tax Dollars to be spent wisely. For example, building a
bullet train from nowhere to nowhere at totally out-of-control costs
like California does right now is not wise. Building bike path for a
small fraction of that money is wise.

Also, if the cyclists' (or any others') right of way is curtailed such
it is here by prohibiting bicycle use on Highway 50 these constituents
must be commensurately compensated by providing another path. Which we
finally have at least to the east (though you need a mountain bike).
That is a rather conservative view.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/