Don't ..Live in Texas !

[achilles]

If you are poor, the taxes are effectively higher than in California, since many government services in Texas are on the flat fee model.

Maybe, I don''t know, but if you're poor in California, we have a place for you to live. It's called the street, or a public park, or outside a school, or on the sidewalk beside a business, since poor people can't afford things like houses or apartments. Or food or gas or electricity. When we have the latter.

[MajorHoy]

Maybe, I don''t know, but if you're poor in California, we have a place for you to live. It's called the street, or a public park, or outside a school, or on the sidewalk beside a business, since poor people can't afford things like houses or apartments. Or food or gas or electricity. When we have the latter.

No housing assistance programs I take it?

[CaptainEurope]

No housing assistance programs I take it?

Several, I bet. That kind of visible homelessness is more often than not associated with mental health and substance abuse, factors that make participating in programs like that difficult.

[achilles]

No housing assistance programs I take it?

Likely not. The problem is that housing and rent are VERY expensive here, and any aid provided would be entirely inadequate to help most people. We're talking about upwards of $2000 a month rent.

[achilles]

Several, I bet. That kind of visible homelessness is more often than not associated with mental health and substance abuse, factors that make participating in programs like that difficult.

This is also true, but the problem there is that the state's leadership has resolutely ignored the problem, and continues to do so. When pressed very hard on the subject during his recall election, Newsom did a couple of photo ops posing for pictures pretending to clean up one of the very dangerous encampments which have multiplied like crazy in the past ten years all over the state, and that was it. Nothing was ever done, in fact when local officials try to do something, they are generally legally blocked. And its almost legally impossible to force mentally ill people or addicts to get help. Nor does the state seem willing to commit the money or in fact any resources for housing appropriate for those folks. Which needs to include security and other services.

Also, such programs are always means tested, which has to effect of pushing the middle class entirely out of the state, since THEY can't afford housing on top of all the other hugely expensive needs such as health insurance, food, utilities, gas, and sundries.

Seriously, nearly every day there's murders committed by homeless people on the local news, usually leads the morning news off. It's starting to rival gang violence here, and we've got lots of that too.

[CaptainEurope]

This is also true, but the problem there is that the state's leadership has resolutely ignored the problem, and continues to do so. When pressed very hard on the subject during his recall election, Newsom did a couple of photo ops posing for pictures pretending to clean up one of the very dangerous encampments which have multiplied like crazy in the past ten years all over the state, and that was it. Nothing was ever done, in fact when local officials try to do something, they are generally legally blocked. And its almost legally impossible to force mentally ill people or addicts to get help. Nor does the state seem willing to commit the money or in fact any resources for housing appropriate for those folks. Which needs to include security and other services.

Also, such programs are always means tested, which has to effect of pushing the middle class entirely out of the state, since THEY can't afford housing on top of all the other hugely expensive needs such as health insurance, food, utilities, gas, and sundries.

Seriously, nearly every day there's murders committed by homeless people on the local news, usually leads the morning news off. It's starting to rival gang violence here, and we've got lots of that too.

Cleaning up encampments and removing the homeless from public view does NOTHING.

This sounds like a better approach.

At a mental health treatment center in San Jose, Governor Gavin Newsom today unveiled CARE Court, a new framework to provide individuals with mental health and substance use disorders the care and services they need to get healthy. The proposal, which must be approved by the Legislature, would require counties to provide comprehensive treatment to the most severely impaired and untreated Californians and hold patients accountable to their treatment plan.

“CARE Court is about meeting people where they are and acting with compassion to support the thousands of Californians living on our streets with severe mental health and substance use disorders,” said Governor Newsom. “We are taking action to break the pattern that leaves people without hope and cycling repeatedly through homelessness and incarceration. This is a new approach to stabilize people with the hardest-to-treat behavioral health conditions.”

CARE Court does not wait until someone is hospitalized or arrested before providing treatment. CARE Court will provide an opportunity for a range of people, including family members, first responders, intervention teams, and mental health service providers, among others, to refer individuals suffering from a list of specific ailments, many of them unhoused, and get them into community-based services.

“It’s time we face the painful, but obvious truth: our behavioral health system in California is broken. All of us see it every day on our streets – and it’s long past time we fix it,” said San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria. “Governor Newsom’s CARE Court proposal is a major step forward. It will provide individuals who are struggling with behavioral health issues a pathway to the housing and health services they need and give those who encounter these individuals a real way to get them the help they need. I look forward to working with the Governor and my municipal colleagues to implement a working program at the local level.”

“Governor Newsom’s groundbreaking CARE Court proposal breaks through on a key missing piece of the homeless challenge,” said Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. “For people who are the sickest and most vulnerable on our streets, the governments responsible for helping them must be legally obligated to act.”

[achilles]

Cleaning up encampments and removing the homeless from public view does NOTHING.

This sounds like a better approach.

Nothing has happened with the various proposals he's made before, or that others have made, largely because either they were flawed from conception while sounding good in the broad strokes, or because they were underfunded, or because the proposers never bothered to really push for them, so I have no hopes for this one. And one of the biggest flaws in this particular concept is that there is no compulsion in it. the majority of our homeless population are so because they are addicts, and/or mentally ill, and don't respond to such approaches. I know because very similar proposals have been tried on the local level before, to little or no success.

The biggest barrier to doing this is that our laws, honed through various lawsuits, don't allow any compulsion much beyond 51/50 orders, which are 72 hour mental health holds which can be ordered by police officers, doctors, and a few others, after which the subject must be either determined to be a threat to themselves or others, or unable to care for themselves---or they must be released. That...does not happen often in practice, and the people who can get those orders are very often reluctant to do so. Beyond which the practical difficulties in forcing patients to hold to a care program appear to be unsolvable, at least when the patient is not actually held at a mental health facility, which is as I mention, almost impossible to do after a series of lawsuits in the 70s made committing patients against their will illegal.

BTW, cleaning up the encampments DOES do positive things. These places are hives of all levels of crime, fueled by either mental illness or drugs, they are actual health risks and even outbreaks of diseases such as cholera that have largely been eliminated from our society, only to re-materialize in the encampments. Plus, the improve the local areas for housed residents. Some of the camps are right in front of elementary schools, and the children have to literally step over needles, used condoms, people in drug induced stupors, and risk assault just to get to school.

The problem is that when cleaned up, they simply move down the road a bit. The ONLY workable approach is to somehow rework our laws in such a way as to survive any court challenge to not only supply these people the help they need, but also to compel them to participate. Some may need to be provided care for the duration of their lives...and that is a problem when it mean essentially jailing them for life in a mental health facility, many of which in the 70s at least were not good places to be, and still won't be without adequate funding. It is by no means an easy fix and I have no answers, but then neither do any of the proposals like this.

[CaptainEurope]

Nothing has happened with the various proposals he's made before, or that others have made, largely because either they were flawed from conception while sounding good in the broad strokes, or because they were underfunded, or because the proposers never bothered to really push for them, so I have no hopes for this one. And one of the biggest flaws in this particular concept is that there is no compulsion in it. the majority of our homeless population are so because they are addicts, and/or mentally ill, and don't respond to such approaches. I know because very similar proposals have been tried on the local level before, to little or no success.

The biggest barrier to doing this is that our laws, honed through various lawsuits, don't allow any compulsion much beyond 51/50 orders, which are 72 hour mental health holds which can be ordered by police officers, doctors, and a few others, after which the subject must be either determined to be a threat to themselves or others, or unable to care for themselves---or they must be released. That...does not happen often in practice, and the people who can get those orders are very often reluctant to do so. Beyond which the practical difficulties in forcing patients to hold to a care program appear to be unsolvable, at least when the patient is not actually held at a mental health facility, which is as I mention, almost impossible to do after a series of lawsuits in the 70s made committing patients against their will illegal.

BTW, cleaning up the encampments DOES do positive things. These places are hives of all levels of crime, fueled by either mental illness or drugs, they are actual health risks and even outbreaks of diseases such as cholera that have largely been eliminated from our society, only to re-materialize in the encampments. Plus, the improve the local areas for housed residents. Some of the camps are right in front of elementary schools, and the children have to literally step over needles, used condoms, people in drug induced stupors, and risk assault just to get to school.

The problem is that when cleaned up, they simply move down the road a bit. The ONLY workable approach is to somehow rework our laws in such a way as to survive any court challenge to not only supply these people the help they need, but also to compel them to participate. Some may need to be provided care for the duration of their lives...and that is a problem when it mean essentially jailing them for life in a mental health facility, many of which in the 70s at least were not good places to be, and still won't be without adequate funding. It is by no means an easy fix and I have no answers, but then neither do any of the proposals like this.

CARE Court has passed the state legislature.

In the next two years, California’s 58 counties will be tasked with setting up new court systems to address the needs of people with severe mental illness who often languish on the streets.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court proposal swept through the state Legislature with resounding approval from Democrats and Republicans in both houses on Aug. 31 — only two of the state’s 120 legislators voted against it — and was signed into law by the governor on Sept. 14. The proposal was authored by Democratic Sens. Tom Umberg of Garden Grove and Susan Talamantes Eggman of Stockton through Senate Bill 1338.

“This is one of the things I think we’ll look back on with tremendous pride, when we’re done,” Newsom said during the bill signing ceremony in San Jose, where he first announced the proposal in March. “We get a moment in time, but this might live on, if we make it real. And that’s the hard work of the next year.”

It appears you lacked information about Newsom doing something.

[achilles]

CARE Court has passed the state legislature.



It appears you lacked information about Newsom doing something.

Er, no, I don't. As I said, this will do nothing. It's been tried before, and is just a cosmetic attempt to get the press of his back while he's exploring a Presidential run. I actually LIVE here and have done so for most of my life. I've SEEN the changes, and what has been done or not done. And this lacks detail as to how it actually will work. It's one of those carefully named slogan bills that amount to "and then MAGIC will happen and make everything right. For someone who doesn't live here, (based on your name), to assume that it hasn't been done before, or will do anything other than cover political butt, is rather funny.

[AnakinFlair]

There are things about Texas I would love to see one day. Some of the land looks gorgeous. I hear that a lot of the people are friendly (unless you are a Phillies fan, apparently). But then I see the people running the state, or representing the state in Congress, and I just want to give Texas back to Mexico.

That said, I come from the state that brought us Josh Hawley, so I wouldn't particularly mind if Mexico also took about 3/4ths of Missouri as well.

Maybe, I don''t know, but if you're poor in California, we have a place for you to live. It's called the street, or a public park, or outside a school, or on the sidewalk beside a business, since poor people can't afford things like houses or apartments. Or food or gas or electricity. When we have the latter.

Having jut got back from LA, it was sobering seeing all of the homeless encampments around the city. Especially in Venice, where my tour group stopped to take pictures of the canals, while right across the street were several tents set up on the sidewalk.

[Odd Rödney]

Could be worse. Could be Florida.

I've lived in Florida for 20 years and if I wasn't tied to my job and retirement plan I'd be outta here. 20 years and each year everything just gets gradually worse. Mainly because Floridians are hell bent on continuously electing rich evil men who don't give a crap about them. Over and over and over again. Ron DeSantis, Rick Scott, Matt Gaetz etc. You couldn't find worse people for the job. It's absolutely an actual kakistocracy.

There was a tweet that became a meme that went about a while ago. Something like "Floridians could be choosing between free ice cream or a punch in the face and the result would be 49/51."

I think that is pretty accurate. Just astonishingly stupid.

[The Gold Stream]

i like it here, theres a good mix of available restaurants i can order from with uber eats
little hot in the summer but nothing too bad. really great weather atm though

[Kirby101]

There is a good mix of available restaurants to order uber eats in every freaking city in the country.

[The Gold Stream]

i disagree even some smaller cities in tx can be a little remote

not houston though thankfully

[The Gold Stream]

i went to waco once and whatever little neighborhood or area it was literally had a single diner. nightmare stuff

that was pre uber eats though so maybe they built up more since then. I think the uber eat delivery range is 16 miles though so maybe there could have been a fast food place