Thread: Can you believe this!!!

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Besides the police in those communities are serving their citizens well by cutting crime there, and serving the indigent person well by getting them somewhere they can have food and a bed. For them it's a win win and I can't blame them for taking advantage of it. They aren't committing any crime and its hard to fault them for giving a down and out "citizen" of their jurisdiction a ride to a place where he can get a leg up. Isn't that serving the public?

I would agree with you but for one thing. When the police had this guy...did they do any checks? Did they know he had warrants? Dumping a wanted felon for someone else to deal with is not serving the public, it is shirking your duty.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I'm ****ed at them for putting up the shelter, because they were told that this is exactly what would happen. They were warned. They went ahead anyway. When asked to put it to a public vote, they also claimed they didn't have to and again went right ahead and built the shelter. When public hearings were held to debate the location of the shelter the council again ran roughshod over all objections and got their way. Now they are reaping what they have sown in the form of rising crime and an exploding indigent population. Most of whom come here on their own not chauffeured here by the police in other communities.

Besides the police in those communities are serving their citizens well by cutting crime there, and serving the indigent person well by getting them somewhere they can have food and a bed. For them it's a win win and I can't blame them for taking advantage of it. They aren't committing any crime and its hard to fault them for giving a down and out "citizen" of their jurisdiction a ride to a place where he can get a leg up. Isn't that serving the public?

Seems like they are robbing peter to pay paul. If they know what they are doing, they should be held culpable for it. As far as the shelter goes, it's up and it doesn't sound like it is coming down. Anytime the City runs "roughshod" over the people it sucks. I keep telling folks that the city council elections are more important than almost any other...but I digress. It doesn't help that the Michigan economy is hit harder still than the nation's too. So where would all the homeless be if not in this shelter? It is an ernest question. If 75% of them are from you're county, where were they before this place was built?

Blame is easy to come by and give out. Solutions are not. Again, JMHO.

-Rob

Homelesness isn't the issue here, it's stupid cops who don't want to do their jobs.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

how can they be "residents" if they don't have one.

They reside in the streets.

Originally Posted by jockeys

see? this is why I have Modestly Proposed that the homeless be liquified and put to work as biodeisel.

Eat the rich instead and there'll be more than enough to go around for everyone.

X

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Many of you know my views on state sponsored charity.

So, is your point that if the locals in the original jurisdiction had set up a private shelter, this never would have happened?

Originally Posted by Whiskers

Sounds like someone has their hand in the till, if you ask me.

Also sounds like a good time to gear up for a CCW permit.

Got one and am more afraid than ever I'll need it.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I would agree with you but for one thing. When the police had this guy...did they do any checks? Did they know he had warrants? Dumping a wanted felon for someone else to deal with is not serving the public, it is shirking your duty.

Yes they screwed up this time in not running the guy through the system. But this instance is just egregious enough to make the papers. How often do hey do this with just any ol homeless guy not a wanted felon? In other words how many meal ticket am I paying for that I shouldn't have to.

Originally Posted by sicboater

Seems like they are robbing peter to pay paul. If they know what they are doing, they should be held culpable for it. As far as the shelter goes, it's up and it doesn't sound like it is coming down. Anytime the City runs "roughshod" over the people it sucks. I keep telling folks that the city council elections are more important than almost any other...but I digress. It doesn't help that the Michigan economy is hit harder still than the nation's too. So where would all the homeless be if not in this shelter? It is an ernest question. If 75% of them are from you're county, where were they before this place was built?

Blame is easy to come by and give out. Solutions are not. Again, JMHO.

-Rob

Those "from this county" really aren't This county is in general one of the wealthiest in the state with the lowest level of joblessness around. Before this shelter went up, there were no visible homeless in this area, but the lure of free food and free lodging..... now we have homeless centered street crime, beggars on corners, the works. While it seems to some like a chicken and egg problem it really isn't the crime statistics are there if you want to look them up.

As for where they would be if not for this shelter? They would be where they came from, mostly Pontiac, Plymouth, and Detroit. They wouldn't have changed their residence to Ann Arbor if we didn't offer them better benefits and care than they could get back "home".

An eight point seven million homeless shelter sheesh. MY Tax dollars used to solve a problem that didn't exist here until they started throwing money at it.

Gee. I hope all of you posters who got a laugh over the suggestion of liquifying the homeless don't lose your jobs in the near future. Cause if that happened and the economy continues to tank you just might not be able to pay your mortgage payments. And then you might lose your home and you'd be...uhmm..HOMELESS!
And then you might need a place to stay for a time when you don't have a home or a job. And you might need some assistance when you got really hungry. And even though you no longer had a home but considered yourself to be a resident of your town, since you no longer own a home, folks like some of those 'round here would want to treat you like you were no longer a resident cause you didn't live in your house any more. Then you might get liquified.
Gee--it's so easy to go after the powerless and less fortunate. What fun you must be having.
And by the way:Happy Thanksgiving!

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Gee. I hope all of you posters who got a laugh over the suggestion of liquifying the homeless don't lose your jobs in the near future. Cause if that happened and the economy continues to tank you just might not be able to pay your mortgage payments. And then you might lose your home and you'd be...uhmm..HOMELESS!
And then you might need a place to stay for a time when you don't have a home or a job. And you might need some assistance when you got really hungry. And even though you no longer had a home but considered yourself to be a resident of your town, since you no longer own a home, folks like some of those 'round here would want to treat you like you were no longer a resident cause you didn't live in your house any more. Then you might get liquified.
Gee--it's so easy to go after the powerless and less fortunate. What fun you must be having.
And by the way:Happy Thanksgiving!

It's not this simple. There are plenty of programs (yes, more of our tax $$ spent on these) in place to keep the "powerless" and "less fortunate" from ending up "homeless". "Losing" your home doesn't mean you end up living on the street or in a shelter. Generally, the homeless are beyond what any system, including their families, can cope with.

Jordan

I agree. The homeless are often, but not always, comprised of those with significant medical, mental, or social issues and are not easily assimilated into a "normal" societal setting. What my previous post was intending to address was the mean-spirited responses of some who think it's "funny" to joke about "liquifying" those who are down and out, and who are least able to fend for themselves. They are people, not objects for the pleasure of some folks' derision.

Obviously, the problem isn't the county with the shelter. They're doing their best to deal honorably and humanely with a difficult situation. It's the surrounding counties (known hereafter as "welfare counties," since they don't pay their own way) whose solution to homelessness is to ship the problem into someone else's back yard.

Welfare counties remind me of two-year-olds. Remember when your kids were two and you plucked something up from in front of them, hid it behind your back, and proclaimed "All gone!"? Remember the look of wide-eyed amazement on their faces when they believed that the object had, in fact, disappeared? It's like welfare counties who think that because they can't see a problem any more, it no longer exists.

The county with the shelter should send the welfare counties a bill. I bet the courts would back them up. Consider it services rendered.

j

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

They are people, not objects for the pleasure of some folks' derision.

they are people. my post was satire. (notice that I Modestly Proposed it?)
A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia