Hunger Causes Homelessness

Well, in their defense, when you stop feeding a person, eventually they start a lucrative new career as fertilizer or organic worm farms, which decreases the homeless population by 1. Do it long enough, and you've solved homelessness permanently, right?

(Sarcasm, if unclear...)

The other part of the story is that homelessness is increasing in California and the homeless are increasingly finding themselves in suburbia and small towns. So Malibu is getting more homeless because they are finding new places to live outside of the big cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.)

This is a brilliant egregious example of correlation ≠ causation.

(Edited because my original word choice felt too positive for such an abhorrant mentality).

They're treating these people like they're wild animals. "You have so many raccoons hanging around because you're feeding them. If you stop feeding them, they'll go away." Contemptible.

It's certainly not just Malibu. Houston has had an ordinance in place for several years prohibiting the feeding of more than five people without prior permission.

Brightdreamer said:

Well, in their defense, when you stop feeding a person, eventually they start a lucrative new career as fertilizer or organic worm farms, which decreases the homeless population by 1. Do it long enough, and you've solved homelessness permanently, right?

(Sarcasm, if unclear...)

Click to expand...

To go full Swiftian, they could go into organic meat production. I hear Free Range Long Pig is great with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

heza said:

It's certainly not just Malibu. Houston has had an ordinance in place for several years prohibiting the feeding of more than five people without prior permission.

Click to expand...

I bet that worked out well during Hurricane Harvey....

Maggie Maxwell said:

They're treating these people like they're wild animals. "You have so many raccoons hanging around because you're feeding them. If you stop feeding them, they'll go away." Contemptible.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is, this is what they truly believe. Because if the wealthy of Malibu can't see it, it doesn't exist for them.

"Stop making me feel bad for hoarding my millions in off-shore accounts!"

I don't think they were trying to say that hunger increases homelessness. They were saying that if people are homeless and hungry, they will come to where there is food. If there's no food available, they will go somewhere else and be someone else's problem.

I don't think that's an llogical conclusion. Heartless, morally bankrupt, and cruel, but not illogical.

Of course, if everyone takes that same approach some of the homeless will starve. Again, I don't believe the city of Malibu sees that as their problem.

Brightdreamer said:

Well, in their defense, when you stop feeding a person, eventually they start a lucrative new career as fertilizer or organic worm farms, which decreases the homeless population by 1. Do it long enough, and you've solved homelessness permanently, right?

(Sarcasm, if unclear...)

Click to expand...

Seriously, the number of homeless who are dying is on the rise in many cities, including my own. In addition to hunger, some die of exposure, others are hit by cars or die of illnesses that should have been treatable. Some are shot by police.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article121763488.html

It's a problem that isn't going away by being swept under the rug or by people saying, "Not in my backyard."

It's a shame that the church has acquiesced with the city's "request." Even if it were more than a request (but and injunction), this seems like a good time for civil disobedience. My Mother in Law's Church is United Methodist, and they're active in helping the homeless in their community. I like to believe they'd show more spine if their city leaders asked them to stop.

rugcat said:

I don't think they were trying to say that hunger increases homelessness. They were saying that if people are homeless and hungry, they will come to where there is food. If there's no food available, they will go somewhere else and be someone else's problem.

Click to expand...

Malibu has a homeless shelter program ( link ). Except the refuges are 16 miles away from downtown. Which is not the case for the church. Which is about a mile away from downtown. It's a message.

-cb

CWatts said:

To go full Swiftian, they could go into organic meat production. I hear Free Range Long Pig is great with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the free range can be nice, but I just prefer the taste of soylent green; it's more processed, but it's a nostalgia thing. Open up a can, and it's like Granny's back. Oh, wait...

Getting back on track, it certainly is a NIMBY/"if I can't see it, I don't have to admit it's happening or consider that it might happen to me" thing, with a transparent coating of of vague, flimsy justifications so everyone can pretend they're being all reasonable. Reminds me of what I've read about some towns treated hoboes during the Great Depression; drop 'em at the city limits so they're someone else's problem, sometimes with a good thrashing (or after a nice stint in a chain gang) to drive home the message that their problems were unwelcome reminders of bigger troubles. Some were pretty honest about what they were doing, and others danced, but it amounted to the same thing.

Don't forget, Malibu is a haven for entitled selfish rich people. This is the place where people with beachfront property have done things like put up their own No Parking signs and built fences and walls to prevent access to public beaches. So I'm not surprised that Malibu would do something like this.

Fruitbat said:

There are reasons for chronic homelessness; they are not usually just regular people who are out of cash and just need some more. The more vulnerable among them deserve better- and so do the citizens in the area who are merely trying to work, live and raise their kids in a reasonably safe area, which a homeless camp is not likely to be.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

San Francisco has been trying to deal with the homeless problem for decades and getting nowhere. In fact, the problem is worse than ever. Tent cities are springing up not only in the usual places like under the overpasses of highways, but on the streets of certain neighborhoods. Used syringes, human feces, and occasional violent people are common place

Many if not most of the homeless there have nowhere to go and just want to keep out of the way and get out of the rain and have a few possessions. But many are drug addicts, most have some mental problems, and some are full-time criminals. There's one such encampment which is a five minute walk from where I live, and one of the consequences is that I can no longer get anything delivered unless I'm home since any package left on the doorstep will be stolen within the hour.

And how exactly is the city going to provide homes for these people? "Normal" people with jobs can't even afford to live here anymore. (If I hadn't moved here when things weren't so crazy and now have rent control, I couldn't live here myself.)

On the Nextdoor site in my neighborhood, I saw a two bedroom one bath in a moderate section of town near me advertised for $4750 a month. Admittedly, it was a nice place, but still . . .

Guess how many houses in San Francisco and neighboring San Mateo County are listed for under half a million dollars? Zero.

If the city builds or finds subsidized housing for the homeless, why would they provide it for them instead of a middle school teacher who wants to live in the city but can't without that same deal?

The homeless problem is complex, and perhaps intractable – certainly San Francisco hasn't found the answer. I don't know if there is one.

We're going through a cold front this week. It's close to zero Fahrenheit this morning. For three days now, emergency services are at high alert for the homeless.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/as-...-measures-to-help-the-homeless-are-rolled-out

Total cost of the operation: C$800K / year. It's a lot of money, but the second largest city in Canada can afford it.

This is not rocket science.

-cb