IMO arguing that the Rescue Mission shouldn't get government funding because of their policies is reasonable and logical, but I believe in the right of organizations and individuals offering help to choose whom they offer help based on any criteria they choose. Society is also free to judge them, you or anyone can protest, or support/start an alternate organization that more aligns with their own views. Be careful asking for any sort of quasi-authoritarian measures, they can and will be turned against you once the door has been opened.
I just wonder how it's going to go being in a residential area. Some of the early articles said that they were allowing people to stay on site in between meals so that should help a lot if it ends up being true. As should the fact that the homeless population will be broken up into two areas now.
I think one part of the solution to dealing with the homeless problem is only offering support to people in their hometown or the a place they have lived in for x number of years. I'm worried that the effect of having improved homeless services is potentially attracting some chunk of the nationally transient population that will fill whatever void is created and then some. I've complained before about the small towns and suburbs not taking care of their own, becoming any kind of beyond-metro area haven for the homeless is not something we want to be. The climate is on our side, we just have to not go full on Portland or San Francisco with policy, those were self-inflicted problems on multiple levels.
Yet they're the ones who want to sue the LGBTQ homeless organizations for descrimination. If they weren't so actively promoting hate, that would be one thing. They are the ones who have started stirring the pot.
Almost any article that director is in just boils my blood. I will just say, I was raised in a religious household following a modest religion. We were never taught to hate, only to support whoever needed it. Not convert. It didn't matter, if someone was in need, you helped them. I'm no longer religious, but I still follow "be good to others". I don't believe the mission does. If they can't separate religion from their practice, they shouldn't receive any public funding. I know you weren't arguing against that...you can see the argument. If they're fully private and want to promote their own hateful values, I suppose that's their choice. I just also have to point it out as "my protest". It's also horrible when those in need have nowhere else to go. What choice do they have then to lie to be accepted for shelter by those that hate them?
That said, and thank you for reading lol, you make a lot of good points. My concern is having it in a less urban, more residential area as you mentioned. I'm hoping the expanded size reduces the lining up outside and on site. If they can maintain a better outward facing appearance, it would be a plus. Shocked they're moving that ancient sign (assuming I interpreted correctly).
I also agree on the aspect of attracting outside homeless, and that they should be dealt with at a local level. I hadn't thought about this, and am now even more concerned. If we could adequately fund these in all communities, it would be great to prevent being such a burden on urban centers.
Of course, addressing the root causes of homelessness would be best but we're never going to get funding to address that, just the problem.
Sorry, I'm taking this way off development but the way things are lately, low income housing and shelters seem to be a topic of discussion, so aspects around seem worthy of discussion.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. As socialist and commie it may sound, I honestly think that for MOST people a national living wage would be a path out of homelessness. Being homeless must be so exhausting, if a person had a bed and money to buy a food and personal items, they could free themselves from the daily trek of lining up for help of trying to find a place to be while waiting for the shelter to reopen, of digging through trash cans filled with pet waste for deposit cans. I think that everyone deserves a chance, and even if all they do with their "living wage" is not what we would do, to me it is not up to me how the recipient of charity uses it and is really none of my business. If the wage was universal than there would be no reason to rip off the system. It is not that crazy of an idea, but this world we find ourselves today charity and help come with judgement and ridicule. I am trying to visualize a different better world.
Just FYI I was speaking more in big picture terms, not specific to The Mission, I know very little about what they do good/bad/in-between besides that they're a faith-based homeless shelter.
I hate to get off topic too far but I do have a sort of a rant on UBI ( I think that's what you meant @gbdinlansing )... It's almost certainly not sustainable or feasible today but with AI taking over most meaningful sectors of the economy in the coming years and decades we're going to have to figure something out. Needing a UBI in that scenario seems obvious but I couldn't picture how to get there or how to make it make sense economically (I still may not, I'm not an economist) but I have an inkling of an idea: In a potentially hyper-productive economy (like with AI doing most things), but with low demand (because most people have no income), extreme deflation sets in, destroying the economy and probably society. How do economists combat deflation? By printing money. But instead of doing it just in an emergency and funneling most of that money through bureaucratic channels it could be done in perpetuity (because AI will assumedly increase productivity in perpetuity) and issued directly to people (to create demand in the economy). Think of it as an everlasting stimulus check. The government also prints money to fund its own activities in this scenario, the level of money printing correlates to a particular inflation/productivity target. The government and the UBI is funded by inflation, more or less. The transition may be a little rocky but at least a system like this still allows markets to function as the economy's guiding force and still allows private wealth creation/ownership outside the UBI scheme that keeps much of the population afloat.
Well said, I am not sure about the AI takeover of most things' we humans do or if I will have to face such a situation as I am pushing the big 7-0 next month. I may be wrong to face such a thing with fear, but it sure sounds scary. It would seem rather stupid to turn all of our activities to AI there by impoverishing everyone by taking their jobs away, and manufacture stuff no one can buy. I like your ideas for the future, and it would be great if we could replace a certain non-functioning orange-stained human brain with an AI brain today before its owner destroys our economy and the rest of us with it. That one would freak out at even the thought of a universal living wage. It worked during the pandemic the stimulus checks, and childcare funds were spent in the economy and thousands of children were lifted out of poverty. OK rant over thanks for reading! Back to our normal programming!
I noticed the new fence in front of WLNS, it seems a little over done with the bent iron spicks arching down on the street side. It is not as ugly as it could be and I don't know what kind of threats they face but this fence is more defensive that the fence they put up at the governor's home which just has points on top, to me less ominous and negative looking than WLNS's.
Thanks for the transportation survey link, by the way. I wrote "clean up the graffiti!" eighteen times.
(Truly though. You leave it, you may as well erect a sign that says "we just don't care that much". That's the message.)
I also pointed out the graffiti. I would like to see some enforcement of vandalism laws, maybe if these ''artist" had to pay for their crimes against our community others might not follow. Even I can tell that one or two people do a lot of the tagging because of their stupid repetitive and poorly done tags. Start with them!
Comments
I just wonder how it's going to go being in a residential area. Some of the early articles said that they were allowing people to stay on site in between meals so that should help a lot if it ends up being true. As should the fact that the homeless population will be broken up into two areas now.
I think one part of the solution to dealing with the homeless problem is only offering support to people in their hometown or the a place they have lived in for x number of years. I'm worried that the effect of having improved homeless services is potentially attracting some chunk of the nationally transient population that will fill whatever void is created and then some. I've complained before about the small towns and suburbs not taking care of their own, becoming any kind of beyond-metro area haven for the homeless is not something we want to be. The climate is on our side, we just have to not go full on Portland or San Francisco with policy, those were self-inflicted problems on multiple levels.
Almost any article that director is in just boils my blood. I will just say, I was raised in a religious household following a modest religion. We were never taught to hate, only to support whoever needed it. Not convert. It didn't matter, if someone was in need, you helped them. I'm no longer religious, but I still follow "be good to others". I don't believe the mission does. If they can't separate religion from their practice, they shouldn't receive any public funding. I know you weren't arguing against that...you can see the argument. If they're fully private and want to promote their own hateful values, I suppose that's their choice. I just also have to point it out as "my protest". It's also horrible when those in need have nowhere else to go. What choice do they have then to lie to be accepted for shelter by those that hate them?
That said, and thank you for reading lol, you make a lot of good points. My concern is having it in a less urban, more residential area as you mentioned. I'm hoping the expanded size reduces the lining up outside and on site. If they can maintain a better outward facing appearance, it would be a plus. Shocked they're moving that ancient sign (assuming I interpreted correctly).
I also agree on the aspect of attracting outside homeless, and that they should be dealt with at a local level. I hadn't thought about this, and am now even more concerned. If we could adequately fund these in all communities, it would be great to prevent being such a burden on urban centers.
Of course, addressing the root causes of homelessness would be best but we're never going to get funding to address that, just the problem.
Sorry, I'm taking this way off development but the way things are lately, low income housing and shelters seem to be a topic of discussion, so aspects around seem worthy of discussion.
I hate to get off topic too far but I do have a sort of a rant on UBI ( I think that's what you meant @gbdinlansing )... It's almost certainly not sustainable or feasible today but with AI taking over most meaningful sectors of the economy in the coming years and decades we're going to have to figure something out. Needing a UBI in that scenario seems obvious but I couldn't picture how to get there or how to make it make sense economically (I still may not, I'm not an economist) but I have an inkling of an idea: In a potentially hyper-productive economy (like with AI doing most things), but with low demand (because most people have no income), extreme deflation sets in, destroying the economy and probably society. How do economists combat deflation? By printing money. But instead of doing it just in an emergency and funneling most of that money through bureaucratic channels it could be done in perpetuity (because AI will assumedly increase productivity in perpetuity) and issued directly to people (to create demand in the economy). Think of it as an everlasting stimulus check. The government also prints money to fund its own activities in this scenario, the level of money printing correlates to a particular inflation/productivity target. The government and the UBI is funded by inflation, more or less. The transition may be a little rocky but at least a system like this still allows markets to function as the economy's guiding force and still allows private wealth creation/ownership outside the UBI scheme that keeps much of the population afloat.
(Truly though. You leave it, you may as well erect a sign that says "we just don't care that much". That's the message.)