Jump to content

Homelessness In Houston


Recommended Posts

On 5/21/2019 at 8:19 AM, Nate99 said:

Turner is a failure on so many fronts, but I will give him and the city one qualified bit of credit in trying to eliminate the campsites via an ordinance some years back. Apparently a judge found a constitutional right to camp on public rights of ways, so the city stopped enforcement. It appears that they threw in the towel after the judgement though, so my credit stops there.  The idea was part of a larger effort to move these camps away from downtown to minimally restrictive sites with a few basic services to keep the spread of disease to a minimum and keep downtown's trajectory as a place that the rest of us, from dish washers to CEO's, actually want to be. 

 

"Affordable housing" and people living in underpass campsites do not belong in the same discussion.  It's hijacking one visible emotional problem to serve another, completely separate issue. People that can not manage the most basic parts of a social compact are not a subsidized apartment away from benign, but apparently we can't legally institutionalize them or clear out their filth until there is some definitive public health hazard.  There are dozens of private charities in Houston in addition government services that these people are not utilizing. As pointed out, cities with better climates and more generous public services have the problem far worse than Houston, we might want to use that as a marker for our next steps as a city.

 

Panhandling every day around busy pedestrian areas nets enough cash for their addiction/self-medicating on occasion until they are either arrested, taken to a hospital or tragically die on our streets.  This is not compassionate and it's not "grit", it's shameful. 

 

One case in point...

 

 

 

I just saw this! Fantastic video.

 

Particularly the "MAT" program. For the few homeless we do have this would be an potential game changer in solving the issue. This idea of combining Prisons into Medical treatment centers is interesting and could be the solution.

 

I also agree with the reporter. "Compassion", as a term, has been warped and twisted for a long time, which once meant to be a kind of tough love, has now devolved into apathy. Its gone from a word that inspires intervention to a word that inspires ignorance. Compassion was once an engaging word or active word, and now its become one of disengaging or passive. Compassion used to be used to try and make people into better versions of themselves, and now its used to "just accept people for the way they are", to "just be yourself", and "you are great just the way they are".

 

...yeah I'm sure the people that do wander those streets are "great just the way they are".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just spent a week in Chicago and interacting with homeless in their downtown vs ours is a cakewalk.  Most of the homeless there had signs or asked if I could spare any change without being aggressive.  Does anyone know of any specific policy or unspoken rule as to how Chicago has panhandlers everywhere but they don't make traversing downtown unbearable?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BeerNut said:

Just spent a week in Chicago and interacting with homeless in their downtown vs ours is a cakewalk.  Most of the homeless there had signs or asked if I could spare any change without being aggressive.  Does anyone know of any specific policy or unspoken rule as to how Chicago has panhandlers everywhere but they don't make traversing downtown unbearable?  

 

I don't know of any specific policy. Also, I would differ on Chicago v. Houston homelessness. I would say Chicago is worse. Keep in mind there needs to be a distinction. Like illigal immigrant v. legal immigrant. True homeless people, that is people/families without a home but want one, are different from people who chose to live on the streets for all sorts of reasons. Of the latter, I would say it is far worse in Chicago. The CTA subway stations in downtown are absolutely disgusting and filled with many aggressive panhandlers. My wife and I made the mistake last month of taking the blue line from the downtown subway station. We had a baby stroller with us, so we needed to take the elevator down to reach the platform. The stench of urine on the elevator was pungent. Once on the CTA train, the amount of panhandlers and just plain cray people is unlike anything in Houston. 

Also, if you were here last week, then you may have not seen that many because it's still cold up here. We were in the low 50s this morning. Last weeks I remember some days being in the 40s. Point is, they come out more in the warmer summer months. 

You have to be very situationally aware on Chicago's CTA bus and subway/El lines. It's so bad there's a new tv show about the Red Line. https://www.cbs.com/shows/the-red-line/

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it was still cool enough to need a jacket.   I didn't ride any buses but did use the subway/El lines to get around.  I spent most of my time inside Chicago Loop except when I ventured out to a different neighborhood.   Did have an interaction with this guy faking being mentally disabled pushing a walker on the subway.  After everyone ignored him he grabbed his walker and ran to the next car when the subway stopped, silent car erupted in laughter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeerNut said:

Yeah it was still cool enough to need a jacket.   I didn't ride any buses but did use the subway/El lines to get around.  I spent most of my time inside Chicago Loop except when I ventured out to a different neighborhood.   Did have an interaction with this guy faking being mentally disabled pushing a walker on the subway.  After everyone ignored him he grabbed his walker and ran to the next car when the subway stopped, silent car erupted in laughter.

 

Speaking of homelessness and faking disabilities, they recently arrested a homeless man who punched an elderly lady outside of HEB on Buffalo Speedway:

https://www.click2houston.com/news/homeless-man-accused-of-punching-woman-outside-h-e-b-arrested-charged

 

The guy was sitting in a wheelchair and just gets up and pushes it away after he hits the woman. I'm not sure if he was trying to fake disability or if he just wanted a seat to panhandle. From reading the article it sounds like he has a history of unprovoked assault having been arrested 3-4 times for it. 

 

That being said, I shop at this HEB frequently and really haven't seen any panhandlers outside of I-59 nearby. 

Edited by CaptainJilliams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For context, the link a few posts above regarding the ACLU injunction is referring to Kohr v. City of Houston, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212428.

 

The ACLU has a page dedicated to the case https://www.aclutx.org/en/cases/tammy-kohr-et-al-vs-city-houston

 

Especially useful (if you're a panhandler) is their "Houston Encampment Know Your Rights Flyer"  https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/houston_encampment_kyr_w_rj_logo.pdf

 

In my opinion I actually think the Mayor is doing a good job on this issue. The city attorneys office is actually making legal headwinds against the ACLU. In the case above the judge denied the injunction while the case is allowed to proceed to trial. 

 

For further context, ever since Pottinger v. city of Miami, the ACLU has tried to apply its winning argument in as many jurisdictions as possible including Texas. Keep in mind it is not a supreme court case, just a case from Florida. However, it's been relied upon by many other jurisdictions. Essentially Pottinger says that anti-homeless ordinances are unconstitutional because they punish involuntary conduct that necessarily arises from an immutable status (being homeless). 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

For context, the link a few posts above regarding the ACLU injunction is referring to Kohr v. City of Houston, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212428.

 

The ACLU has a page dedicated to the case https://www.aclutx.org/en/cases/tammy-kohr-et-al-vs-city-houston

 

Especially useful (if you're a panhandler) is their "Houston Encampment Know Your Rights Flyer"  https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/houston_encampment_kyr_w_rj_logo.pdf

 

In my opinion I actually think the Mayor is doing a good job on this issue. The city attorneys office is actually making legal headwinds against the ACLU. In the case above the judge denied the injunction while the case is allowed to proceed to trial. 

 

For further context, ever since Pottinger v. city of Miami, the ACLU has tried to apply its winning argument in as many jurisdictions as possible including Texas. Keep in mind it is not a supreme court case, just a case from Florida. However, it's been relied upon by many other jurisdictions. Essentially Pottinger says that anti-homeless ordinances are unconstitutional because they punish involuntary conduct that necessarily arises from an immutable status (being homeless). 

 

Good info, thanks. 

 

Interesting that the "immutable" angle gets any traction when the City is offering them an alternative location. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We give them free food, showers, clothes. Why should they want to do anything at all? If they collect cans or stand on a corner, they can get enough to buy the things that Star of Hope and others don’t give them. We make it easy. 

Put them in a camp, make them perform 20 hours of community service, give something back for all the charity that they take. Yeah, yeah: I’m the as$hole for saying it but I stand by what I said. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, chrispy said:

We give them free food, showers, clothes. Why should they want to do anything at all? 

 

It's a dilemma. If communities try to help by making the camps more "livable" you discourage the homeless from trying to improve their situation. Do nothing and you run the risk of them pitching a tent in front of your lawn/or crapping on your lawn.

There is an article in the LA Times today discussing the blowback from taxpayers on the costs of providing mobile toilets for homeless people.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-bathroom-restroom-feces-skid-row-pit-stop-20190610-story.html

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

It's a dilemma. If communities try to help by making the camps more "livable" you discourage the homeless from trying to improve their situation. Do nothing and you run the risk of them pitching a tent in front of your lawn/or crapping on your lawn.

There is an article in the LA Times today discussing the blowback from taxpayers on the costs of providing mobile toilets for homeless people.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-bathroom-restroom-feces-skid-row-pit-stop-20190610-story.html

 

 

Interesting article and it gives some of the costs of alternatives. Not surprisingly, the main cost driver is staffing because apparently, unsupervised toilets get trashed and/or people get attacked in them. 

 

Seems like the kind of thing that should be prosecuted.

 

The phrasing of LA times pop-up ad at the end of that particular article was unfortunate.  Let's see, skyrocketing homelss too violent to manage a public toilet...

 

 

Capture.PNG

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nate99 said:

 

Interesting article and it gives some of the costs of alternatives. Not surprisingly, the main cost driver is staffing because apparently, unsupervised toilets get trashed and/or people get attacked in them. 

 

Seems like the kind of thing that should be prosecuted.

 

The phrasing of LA times pop-up ad at the end of that particular article was unfortunate.  Let's see, skyrocketing homelss too violent to manage a public toilet...

 

 

Capture.PNG

 

It gets even worse when you read articles saying the following:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/47888/bubonic-plague-likely-already-present-los-angeles-joseph-curl

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/04/los-angeles-homeless-population-up-12-amid-affordable-housing-crisis/1336734001/

 

I've seen skid row, but I never realized how bad the problem was in Los Angeles. The threat of medieval diseases mixed with a growing population spells trouble for the city. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2019 at 11:21 PM, 102IAHexpress said:

For context, the link a few posts above regarding the ACLU injunction is referring to Kohr v. City of Houston, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212428.

 

The ACLU has a page dedicated to the case https://www.aclutx.org/en/cases/tammy-kohr-et-al-vs-city-houston

 

Especially useful (if you're a panhandler) is their "Houston Encampment Know Your Rights Flyer"  https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/houston_encampment_kyr_w_rj_logo.pdf

 

In my opinion I actually think the Mayor is doing a good job on this issue. The city attorneys office is actually making legal headwinds against the ACLU. In the case above the judge denied the injunction while the case is allowed to proceed to trial. 

 

For further context, ever since Pottinger v. city of Miami, the ACLU has tried to apply its winning argument in as many jurisdictions as possible including Texas. Keep in mind it is not a supreme court case, just a case from Florida. However, it's been relied upon by many other jurisdictions. Essentially Pottinger says that anti-homeless ordinances are unconstitutional because they punish involuntary conduct that necessarily arises from an immutable status (being homeless). 

 

Thanks for those references.  To be clear, the court in Pottinger did not base its opinion on homelessness being an immutable status (and it would have been foolish to do so; homelessness is not an immutable status).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CaptainJilliams said:

 

It gets even worse when you read articles saying the following:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/47888/bubonic-plague-likely-already-present-los-angeles-joseph-curl

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/04/los-angeles-homeless-population-up-12-amid-affordable-housing-crisis/1336734001/

 

I've seen skid row, but I never realized how bad the problem was in Los Angeles. The threat of medieval diseases mixed with a growing population spells trouble for the city. 

 

 

Saw this while watching some of Tim Pool's videos (whom I've come to rely on for news from a Left perspective, Defranco from the Center, and Shapiro for the Right). Tim Pool said it right in one of his videos about these problems; essentially its not necessarily because California is Left or favors more social democratic policies its that they implement it in a lazy and corrupt fashion. Some social democratic policies can be very useful if implemented correctly and per the context of the state (Cali is trying to be a Denmark or Sweden, but its a vastly different economy and people). What he also hits home from discussing such topics is that Cali is suffering from a lack of political competition or a lack of competition from differing viewpoints that can help balance the scales a bit (I dare say a "diversity" of opinion). Here was one video where he goes more into this:

 

 

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Thanks for those references.  To be clear, the court in Pottinger did not base its opinion on homelessness being an immutable status (and it would have been foolish to do so; homelessness is not an immutable status).

 

In other words the ACLU exhibits what has come to be called the "bigotry of low expectations". It would be dangerous and idiotic to claim that homeless is "immutable". To say it is would be to subscribe to the "bigotry of low expectations" that those who are homeless will forever be homeless. In a sense the "false" compassion that I stated prior.

 

All of these things yall have discuss are great though. I'll have to look into this particular court case at some point and have a look. Great info.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Thanks for those references.  To be clear, the court in Pottinger did not base its opinion on homelessness being an immutable status (and it would have been foolish to do so; homelessness is not an immutable status).

 

To be clear it did. "In sum, class members rarely choose to be homeless. They become homeless due to a variety of factors that are beyond their control. In addition, plaintiffs do not have the choice, much less the luxury, of being in the privacy of their own homes. Because of the unavailability of low-income housing or alternative shelter, plaintiffs have no choice but to conduct involuntary, life-sustaining activities in public places. The harmless conduct for which they are arrested is inseparable from their involuntary condition of being homeless. Consequently, arresting homeless people for harmless acts they are forced to perform in public effectively punishes them for being homeless." Pottinger v. Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1564 (S.D. Fla. 1992)

 

To be clearer, ever since Robinson v. California, status offenses have been unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. That is, criminalizing someone for who they are and not what they do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

To be clear it did. "In sum, class members rarely choose to be homeless. They become homeless due to a variety of factors that are beyond their control. In addition, plaintiffs do not have the choice, much less the luxury, of being in the privacy of their own homes. Because of the unavailability of low-income housing or alternative shelter, plaintiffs have no choice but to conduct involuntary, life-sustaining activities in public places. The harmless conduct for which they are arrested is inseparable from their involuntary condition of being homeless. Consequently, arresting homeless people for harmless acts they are forced to perform in public effectively punishes them for being homeless." Pottinger v. Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1564 (S.D. Fla. 1992)

 

To be clearer, ever since Robinson v. California, status offenses have been unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. That is, criminalizing someone for who they are and not what they do. 

 

 

This seems like a good place to post the definition of "immutable":

 

Dictionary.com:  not mutable; unchangeable; changeless.

 

Merriam-Websternot capable of or susceptible to change.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

 

This seems like a good place to post the definition of "immutable":

 

Dictionary.com:  not mutable; unchangeable; changeless.

 

Merriam-Websternot capable of or susceptible to change.

 

 

 

 

 

And this is a good place to post the actual City of Houston Case...

 

Quote

The plaintiffs have failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The plaintiffs maintain that §§ 21-61 to 21-62 of the encampment ordinance violate their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment, because it punishes persons by virtue of their "homeless" status. As support for their position, the plaintiffs rely upon Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666, 82 S. Ct. 1417, 8 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1962) as well as Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1992), for the proposition that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it punishes involuntary conduct that necessarily arises from immutable status.

Kohr v. City of Houston, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212428, *9, 2017 WL 6619336 (S.D. Tex. December 28, 2017)

 

Good try. It's fun to play an attorney sometimes. If you enjoy it, look into going to law school? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

And this is a good place to post the actual City of Houston Case...

 

 

Good try. It's fun to play an attorney sometimes. If you enjoy it, look into going to law school? 

 

Odd that you chose to end your quote right there.  The very next words in the Houston case:  "This Court does not agree." 

 

A plaintiff attorney's misuse of a word does not change the word's meaning.  Or perhaps the attorney really believes that homelessness is an immutable status (once homeless, forever homeless).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Houston19514 The "plaintiff's" attorneys as you call them are the ACLU. Whatever I think of their politics, they are clearly more versed in the law than you. They made the immutable status argument. They based it on years of precedent. It's not fake news. I didn't make it up. You can check. The internet exists for free. Can we move on "counselor?" 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

@Houston19514 The "plaintiff's" attorneys as you call them are the ACLU. Whatever I think of their politics, they are clearly more versed in the law than you. They made the immutable status argument. They based it on years of precedent. It's not fake news. I didn't make it up. You can check. The internet exists for free. Can we move on "counselor?" 

 

 

 

LOL  Yes, they made the argument (drawing invalid conclusions from the Florida case and misusing the word "immutable"...   Whatever the ACLU's expertise, it is a simple matter of fact that homelessness is NOT an immutable condition.)

 

And the Court shot the argument down.  They LOST.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you decide to go to law school, you can take a course on equitable relief. After that, you will understand, that they haven't "lost." The case is still PENDING. Personally, I hope they do lose. It will be great for the city. However, they have clearly been winning all across the country, see, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

When you decide to go to law school, you can take a course on equitable relief. After that, you will understand, that they haven't "lost." The case is still PENDING. Personally, I hope they do lose. It will be great for the city. However, they have clearly been winning all across the country, see, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, etc...

 

Read more carefully.  (One would have thought you would have learned THAT in law school.)  They lost on the argument and they lost on the issues before the Court in the matter you cited.

 

Reading more carefully also would have allowed you to avoid making the original misstatement that Pottinger had anything to do with immutable status.

 

Being more honest would allow you to admit your error.

 

Again, being homeless is not, never has been, and never will be, an immutable status. One does not have to have graduated from law school to understand this basic fact.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you would have known the difference between a TRO and Trial? I guess not. As a brief history, the ACLU filed suit and asked for a TRO pending trial. Which is customary. Surprisingly the TRO was denied (that's why it made the news). However, the Trial is still pending. This is very basic civics. You file a lawsuit and then then you have a trail. Not sure what's so difficult about that? The ACLU COULD very well end up wining at trial. In fact they have a pretty good track record of winning. And even if they lose at the trial level, they WILL appeal. They also have a very good track record at appeals. Again, look at all the homeless camps across the country. You think the mayors of all of those cities haven't tried to eliminate them? Of course! But they keep losing the legal battle against the ACLU (see the immutable status argument). Again, I hope the City of Houston ends up making permanent legal victories against the ACLU, but that remains to be seen. We will have to wait and see.

 

If you would like to read more about status crimes, then I encourage to look at the Supreme Court case Robinson v. California. This is very basic criminal law, but essentially every crime requires two things, a voluntary act (actus reus) and intent (mens rea). The winning argument (which I don't agree with) has been that homeless people have not satisfied both the elements above. That is to say, they are immutably homeless at the time of the offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

I thought you would have known the difference between a TRO and Trial? I guess not. As a brief history, the ACLU filed suit and asked for a TRO pending trial. Which is customary. Surprisingly the TRO was denied (that's why it made the news). However, the Trial is still pending. This is very basic civics. You file a lawsuit and then then you have a trail. Not sure what's so difficult about that? The ACLU COULD very well end up wining at trial. In fact they have a pretty good track record of winning. And even if they lose at the trial level, they WILL appeal. They also have a very good track record at appeals. Again, look at all the homeless camps across the country. You think the mayors of all of those cities haven't tried to eliminate them? Of course! But they keep losing the legal battle against the ACLU (see the immutable status argument). Again, I hope the City of Houston ends up making permanent legal victories against the ACLU, but that remains to be seen. We will have to wait and see.

 

If you would like to read more about status crimes, then I encourage to look at the Supreme Court case Robinson v. California. This is very basic criminal law, but essentially every crime requires two things, a voluntary act (actus reus) and intent (mens rea). The winning argument (which I don't agree with) has been that homeless people have not satisfied both the elements above. That is to say, they are immutably homeless at the time of the offense. 

 

ROFL   Immutable at the time...  That's a good one!

 

And the dishonesty continues.   It's what we've come to expect from you.

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good LA Times article from today discussing all the legal rulings they have to navigate in SoCal to try to be compliant with the 9th circuit. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-homeless-camping-sidewalks-lawsuits-20190613-story.html

 

Meanwhile over in NYC, this is the new pilot program they are implementing in their fight against homeless panhandlers on the subway. https://nypost.com/2019/06/13/de-blasio-announces-program-to-get-unruly-homeless-riders-into-shelters/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/2/2019 at 9:04 AM, HoustonMidtown said:

 

I saw this story, these new rules have me very worried for our neighbors in the north. We've always joked about Austin being "New California", but it seems as though they are failing to learn from homeless situations on the west coast.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the crummy band I'm in played in Austin in February, we went by the venue during the day. There were homeless people camped out front, and a homeless shelter was across the street on Red River. (It is a half block away from Stubbs)

 

When night came, a homeless woman who had a nice setup on the street corner at the venue packed up her tent looking thing and her padding, and moved on. 

 

I''m sure she went right back there at 2am after we were gone.

 

So I thought street camping was already legal in Austin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...