Violence at Homeless Camp...

[Queen K]

I'm publishing samples of rules at OTHER homeless shelters, obviously I'm looking for the rules for the one that is about to be built, but where do we stand on it if we don't have a grounding in what rules other shelters demand?

Some rules seem draconian, until you examine the WHYs of such rules. One is "no physical affection can be displayed at any time." I thought WOW, , but then I also thought of the one or two who carry things too far and the staff having to interprete what is too far. So they've said, "None."

https://www.onslowco.org/shelter-rules

[Queen K]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/br ... e32893999/

Dismantle the camp to allow for construction.

I wonder if this is the same site being discussed as the OP's post.

[twobits]

Let's not skirt the issue here with what "rules" they have a problem with. It is quite clearly the "no drugs or alcohol" rule. They want free housings AND carry on with the lifestyle that created their need for free housing.
IMO, this housing should be provided to only those that want to change their outcome......not just continue it in a warm and safe environment rather than a tent. They want us to pony up for a safe shelter, then they should pony up with some effort to become independant of public assistance and be responsible for your own outcome in life. Otherwise, they should go live in a tent somewhere in the bush cuz their version of entitlement is beyond comprehension of anyone who actually has a job and has income tax taken off of their paycheques.

[Jflem1983]

I'm publishing samples of rules at OTHER homeless shelters, obviously I'm looking for the rules for the one that is about to be built, but where do we stand on it if we don't have a grounding in what rules other shelters demand?

Some rules seem draconian, until you examine the WHYs of such rules. One is "no physical affection can be displayed at any time." I thought WOW, , but then I also thought of the one or two who carry things too far and the staff having to interprete what is too far. So they've said, "None."

https://www.onslowco.org/shelter-rules

Actually im gonna go agree with the homeless here.

That list of rules is a non starter it excludes more people than it brings in. If the goal is get people off the street. They are gonna have to give some ground on the rules .

[Jflem1983]

Let's not skirt the issue here with what "rules" they have a problem with. It is quite clearly the "no drugs or alcohol" rule. They want free housings AND carry on with the lifestyle that created their need for free housing.
IMO, this housing should be provided to only those that want to change their outcome......not just continue it in a warm and safe environment rather than a tent. They want us to pony up for a safe shelter, then they should pony up with some effort to become independant of public assistance and be responsible for your own outcome in life. Otherwise, they should go live in a tent somewhere in the bush cuz their version of entitlement is beyond comprehension of anyone who actually has a job and has income tax taken off of their paycheques.

Id argue in some cases get em off the street first then deal with the issues. The criminal thing too. Big deal someone has a criminal record . If your gonna go around thumping the helping others mantra at the expense of the working people i suggest they do it a manner that actually makes a difference. With all those rules it wont get anyone off the street. So it will just be a waste

[HorganIsMyHero]

Let's not skirt the issue here with what "rules" they have a problem with. It is quite clearly the "no drugs or alcohol" rule.

Actually, it's not clear at all. No one in the article states as such. There's a term for inserting one's opinion instead of relying on facts; I think it's called editorializing?

Individuals have individual needs which might require different rules. I'd rather discuss actual facts but the thread quickly turned into another homeless bash-fest with people ranting about homeless people destroying property and what not so I suppose facts aren't a primary concern here.

[Queen K]

The fact is that people who need homes are blocking a development intended to give homes.

It's a fact. How is that "bashing?"

[HorganIsMyHero]

The fact is that people who need homes are blocking a development intended to give homes.

It's a fact. How is that "bashing?"

What you just typed is so far from any sort of coherent response to my post I assume it must be a joke.

Here's some bashing:

Ahhhh yes, too many rules. The homeless should just get to live rule free! No rules for them. That's why they're homeless right?

Parents had too many damned rules.
Job? Too many rules like being clean and showing up.
Rental unit? Too many damn rules, like paying on time and not using the place as a grow op or destroying it in other ways.
Institution? OHHHH, too many rules!!! Like respecting the staff and oh God, rules! No bringing in eight bags of cans, cash them in first.
Homeless shelter? Oh my God, those pesky rules again!

I was flabbergast when I read that about the advocates objecting to all the rules.

Okay, here's a rule: never give them anything again. No RV injection site, no Insite injection site, no help where professionals have to observe ethical standards which closely resemble rules, no hand outs, no jails anymore there there's rules. No rules for them!!

I am outraged, can you tell?

[Queen K]

OH Thank God you remembered to keep the "I am outraged, can you tell?"

I'm not bashing the homeless for being homeless, I'm bashing the so called "advocates" who are encouraging homeless to dig in deep and thus bring compassion to a saturation point of no return. How is anyone going to be expected to donate time or money or in kind to people if they don't understand that HOMES have to be built and there are rules.

Did you miss my point to posting the rules of established homeless shelters? To show that they ALL have rules. Maybe not rules you and I and Jflem would like, but nevertheless, we are society built on rules.

my whole rant about rules is directed at the advocates who don't think the homeless should have rules. Why are they homeless? Because the advocates have missed the point where rules didn't seem to apply. YOU want to say there are many reasons to be homeless and guess what, that's why I had a whole damned list Horganismyhero. From parents to landlords, bosses and companies. They all have rules. Want to reintegrate back into society? There are going to be rules for doing so.

Want a homeless shelter to be there for everything and not have rules? WHAT? Are you kidding me?

If I'm not mistaken, most here got that. Except you. Funny how the likes on that post keep piling up.

[HorganIsMyHero]

OH Thank God you remembered to keep the "I am outraged, can you tell?"

I'm not bashing the homeless for being homeless, I'm bashing the so called "advocates" who are encouraging homeless to dig in deep and thus bring compassion to a saturation point of no return. How is anyone going to be expected to donate time or money or in kind to people if they don't understand that HOMES have to be built and there are rules.

Did you miss my point to posting the rules of established homeless shelters? To show that they ALL have rules. Maybe not rules you and I and Jflem would like, but nevertheless, we are society built on rules.

my whole rant about rules is directed at the advocates who don't think the homeless should have rules. Why are they homeless? Because the advocates have missed the point where rules didn't seem to apply. YOU want to say there are many reasons to be homeless and guess what, that's why I had a whole damned list Horganismyhero. From parents to landlords, bosses and companies. They all have rules. Want to reintegrate back into society? There are going to be rules for doing so.

Want a homeless shelter to be there for everything and not have rules? WHAT? Are you kidding me?

If I'm not mistaken, most here got that. Except you. Funny how the likes on that post keep piling up.

We are a society built on flawed rules that don't take into account the needs of people who are more like a rectangle trying to fit into a circle space. This is especially true for homeless people who quite often have some kind of disorder.

The Castanet article is very ambiguous about what rules are being disagreed with, in fact, it doesn't state any rules whatsoever. I proposed it might have something to do with special needs but people keep insisting that the same rules apply to everyone.

I'm not getting into some childish argument with you about who is getting the most likes on a post. Good for you for getting a lot of likes. That's not the point of this topic and does nothing to illustrate the problems of homeless people.

[dle]

Hoganismyhero said:

Lots of these shelters don't have the right kind of accommodations for certain mental illnesses which is a shame

I think it should be stated that there are many homeless people with serious mental illnesses that should, and could, be in accommodations that DO HAVE the training to support and care for them. However, the majority of those people REFUSE to go into those accommodations. They PREFER to live rough on the streets. They CANNOT be forced to go into them unless they are deemed a harm to themselves or others. They do not trust the accommodations. The street makes them feel safe. They have a support group there. That is their family.

It is absolutely true they do not follow "the rules" that we are expected to - in fact, that is probably an understatement. They follow the rules of the street - their own code. They feel the rules that that a non-street person has to comply with do not apply to them. That sentiment is VALIDATED every time bylaw or law enforcement "gives them a pass" for doing something any of the rest of us would be cited for. They are not arrested for stealing when caught, ie shoplifting, breaking into cars etc, they are not stopped when violating the rules of the road on a bicycle by zigging in and out and almost causing accidents, they dodge people on the sidewalks on their bikes shouting profanities at them, they are not hauled in for being intoxicated in a public place, they are not hauled in for injecting illegal drugs on the streets in broad daylight, they are not admonished for aggressively panhandling downtown. This is undeniable and if you've ever walked downtown at any time of the day or night you'll have witnessed exactly what I'm talking about. Law enforcement and bylaw DO NOT apply the laws to them even when they are right there!

So, when those advocates and street people get mouthy and aggressive - they KNOW nothing is going to happen to them. They KNOW they can do what they want and get away with it. They KNOW for a fact that the RULES don't apply to them.

[dle]

Let's not skirt the issue here with what "rules" they have a problem with. It is quite clearly the "no drugs or alcohol" rule. They want free housings AND carry on with the lifestyle that created their need for free housing.
IMO, this housing should be provided to only those that want to change their outcome......not just continue it in a warm and safe environment rather than a tent. They want us to pony up for a safe shelter, then they should pony up with some effort to become independant of public assistance and be responsible for your own outcome in life. Otherwise, they should go live in a tent somewhere in the bush cuz their version of entitlement is beyond comprehension of anyone who actually has a job and has income tax taken off of their paycheques.

Id argue in some cases get em off the street first then deal with the issues. The criminal thing too. Big deal someone has a criminal record . If your gonna go around thumping the helping others mantra at the expense of the working people i suggest they do it a manner that actually makes a difference. With all those rules it wont get anyone off the street. So it will just be a waste

I think we need to remember that a LOT of the people living rough on the streets DON'T want to be elsewhere. They have lived that life for so long that they truly don't want a "home". They feel they HAVE a home - on the street with their "family". I'm not pulling this suggestion out of thin air - I've watched a documentary where some homeless people were interviewed. They were very well-spoken, seemed in control of their faculties, so I took them at their word. They were adamant that they live "differently" but that it doesn't make it "wrong" and they are quite content where they are. One fellow actually laughed when asked if he would make use of a shelter and said "what for"? So I think we have to look at this from a few different angles. It's not black and white as to what constitutes a "home", or who might even want what's being offered.

[the truth]

What gets me is that the article also states the the new building on that lot will be for the homeless but with "too many rules."

Here: "After more yelling between the cyclist and advocates, the cyclist rode away seemingly unharmed.

The camp was ordered emptied because the city plans on building a housing project on the site.

But advocates said the housing is inadequate and comes with too many rules."

Ahhhh yes, too many rules. The homeless should just get to live rule free! No rules for them. That's why they're homeless right?

Parents had too many damned rules.
Job? Too many rules like being clean and showing up.
Rental unit? Too many damn rules, like paying on time and not using the place as a grow op or destroying it in other ways.
Institution? OHHHH, too many rules!!! Like respecting the staff and oh God, rules! No bringing in eight bags of cans, cash them in first.
Homeless shelter? Oh my God, those pesky rules again!

I was flabbergast when I read that about the advocates objecting to all the rules.

Okay, here's a rule: never give them anything again. No RV injection site, no Insite injection site, no help where professionals have to observe ethical standards which closely resemble rules, no hand outs, no jails anymore there there's rules. No rules for them!!

I am outraged, can you tell?

exactly,

[Queen K]

You'll note that I'm not bashing the homeless.

But like Dle says, some of them are quite articulate and cognitive. So stop providing them with everything, including free passes for the rules.

[HorganIsMyHero]

So stop providing them with everything, including free passes for the rules.

No one actually said homeless people shouldn't have rules. The article states homeless shelters have too many rules which then morphed into people erroneously saying homeless people don't want any rules which then morphed into people bashing the homeless for being entitled.

http://www.mariayang.org/2015/05/25/do-people-choose-to-be-homeless/

No one wants to be homeless. What they want is psychological safety.

Very few people make a conscious choice to be homeless.