[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Altavia

Maybe I missed more than one being reported?

Certainly no evidence of an encampment as sensationalized by the OP.

I saw law enforcement at the bridge two days later and no reports since.

Let's hope you're right.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

While I applaud your empathy for these people, I still think The Villages cannot be the place where society figures out how to handle the problem. By doing so it would create a Mecca for the homeless. Personally, I am in favor of dumping them on the doorstep of those who created the problem, but naturally I cannot state who they are on this forum. I also think that as a group they are a LOT more mobile than you think----Many migrate north-south with the seasons. Just think how many gathered in Denver or Portland with changes in the marijuana laws.

I am not referring to those who are temporarily homeless, had jobs that they lost, and are looking to find another and re-enter normal society. I am referring to the hardcore professionally homeless who embrace their lifestyle. And the last thing we need here are a gaggle of social workers, do-gooders, and other assorted bleeding hearts.

I don't think they need to be housed in the Villages. I was actually thinking more on the order of the Ocala Forest, where there's already a large community of homeless people. I think that community should be better supported. Taught how to be self-sustaining, provided minimal provisions - solar showers, timber and other materials to build their own modest homes, social workers and basic medical care to prevent the spread of disease, maybe dentists who typically do pro-bono work every year could target the Forest as a rotating service destination. The ones who show interest can be taught agricultural techniques to grow their own fruits, vegetables, legumes, using water barrels, rain water and koi ponds to create fertilizer and more food. This is mostly prepper stuff, but it would work great for *organized* homeless encampments.

They could ultimately create their own self-sustaining village, an eco-village. There are such communities in the country, some work better than others.

But I think the concept is great and it'd get these homeless folks away from us, without pushing them into the gutters (or your neighbor's back yard).

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yes. The next spot. Do you know where that next spot will be? This all stems from the mentality of "I don't care where they go, as long as they leave where they are."

That is a common thread, in this thread. They just want them gone from Location1. They don't care where Location 2 is.

And my argument is that it's a really really myopic perception that leads them to this opinion.

No, they won't be going to Portland. They can't afford it. If they could afford the trip to Portland they'd be living in a rented apartment right here, and not be homeless.

They will go wherever their feet can carry them. In Location 1, and even at the local police department where they're let out of jail and told to seek residency elsewhere, there is no mass transit. There's no Greyhound, there's no city bus, there's no airport, there's no shuttle. They don't have their own cars.

They will be staying in the area, whether they're in Location 1 or Location 2, or Locations 5-27.

They'll go somewhere local, stay a few days til they're kicked out, and move to ANOTHER somewhere local.

As long as people continue to insist that they don't care where they are, as long as it's not "here." - the homeless will continue to do that. At some point in time, that "Location X" will be in your neighborhood. Right now they're in the Chitty Chatty area. Next, they'll be in Fenny. After that, maybe they'll move northeast and end up in the Rohan area. Could be this time next year they'll be hanging out under the water oaks at Lopez Legacy CC.

And that's all because people "don't care where they go, as long as it isn't here." I care where they go. I don't want them in MY neighborhood. I'm willing to help, in my limited budget way, to get them some SPECIFIC place where they can be safe, not a nuisance to anywhere else, with the ability to shower, find clothing, food, shelter, SAFETY (remember a lot of these homeless are stark raving bonkers - if you were one of the unfortunate sane people who ended up on the streets, would YOU want to shelter with the dangerous addicts? Or would you rather take your chances in the woods?), and resources to get themselves back up on their feet and contributing to society again, getting jobs, paying rent, buying things with earned money, and thus improving the economy.

Even converting one of the older motels in the general area into some kind of halfway home, with a social worker on premises, would be better than forcing them into shelters or to some wooded area down the road from where they were kicked out.

You keep coming back to solutions that people who have had the closest contact and experience with the problem have said it doesn't work, their problems, mental, personality disorders, drug dependence are beyond the ability to change, they have burnt out help from family and friends.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I don't think they need to be housed in the Villages. I was actually thinking more on the order of the Ocala Forest, where there's already a large community of homeless people. I think that community should be better supported. Taught how to be self-sustaining, provided minimal provisions - solar showers, timber and other materials to build their own modest homes, social workers and basic medical care to prevent the spread of disease, maybe dentists who typically do pro-bono work every year could target the Forest as a rotating service destination. The ones who show interest can be taught agricultural techniques to grow their own fruits, vegetables, legumes, using water barrels, rain water and koi ponds to create fertilizer and more food. This is mostly prepper stuff, but it would work great for *organized* homeless encampments.

They could ultimately create their own self-sustaining village, an eco-village. There are such communities in the country, some work better than others.

But I think the concept is great and it'd get these homeless folks away from us, without pushing them into the gutters (or your neighbor's back yard).

That’s fine. Far enough away

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

You keep coming back to solutions that people who have had the closest contact and experience with the problem have said it doesn't work, their problems, mental, personality disorders, drug dependence are beyond the ability to change, they have burnt out help from family and friends.

Well then the only solution is to shoot them. Clearly you won't want taxpayer dollars helping them, you don't want them in your neighborhood, no one else wants them in their neighborhood, and jails = taxpayer dollars so that's out too. All those undesirables. The infirm, the addicted, the drunk, the unwashed, the insane, the old folks living off social security and medicare, anyone on food stamps, and hey - get rid of the senior discounts while we're at it. We need to stop mollycoddling each other. You work for what you have, or you have nothing and can just die. But not in the graveyard, that's for people who can afford to PAY for the hole in the ground.

There ya go. Problem solved. Just shoot everyone who doesn't measure up to your expectations. I'm sure you'll end up with only the finest, highest-quality servers at McDonald's in no time.

[PugMom]

i wonder if a tiny-home community would work

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well then the only solution is to shoot them. Clearly you won't want taxpayer dollars helping them, you don't want them in your neighborhood, no one else wants them in their neighborhood, and jails = taxpayer dollars so that's out too. All those undesirables. The infirm, the addicted, the drunk, the unwashed, the insane, the old folks living off social security and medicare, anyone on food stamps, and hey - get rid of the senior discounts while we're at it. We need to stop mollycoddling each other. You work for what you have, or you have nothing and can just die. But not in the graveyard, that's for people who can afford to PAY for the hole in the ground.

There ya go. Problem solved. Just shoot everyone who doesn't measure up to your expectations. I'm sure you'll end up with only the finest, highest-quality servers at McDonald's in no time.

That's more hyperbole than usual for you. I do hope you're not seriously comparing 10% off for seniors at Wendy's with a homeless person defecating at a town square.

[PugMom]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Are you one of the people who left a high tax state for a low tax state?

excellent comment. i'm one of those, & while i truly care about the very poor & homeless, you simply cannot 'throw' $$ into the problem because it almost never works. maybe it's because i came from a state rife with corruption throughout that gave me such a view, but i saw average people doing whatever they could do & those who really wanted to help themselves accepted the offers. groups like the local Rotarians do far more than any gov't program could, & helped construct a small community not but miles away. the grateful accepted & were able to find jobs (usually working for a Rotarian's small businesses!)& find their own place in the community. i'm not talking about the chronic homeless who support themselves by crime & undeserved handouts then using that $$ on drugs, i mean the homeless driven out by rising rent costs matched with low wages & skyrocketing food prices.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well then the only solution is to shoot them. Clearly you won't want taxpayer dollars helping them, you don't want them in your neighborhood, no one else wants them in their neighborhood, and jails = taxpayer dollars so that's out too. All those undesirables. The infirm, the addicted, the drunk, the unwashed, the insane, the old folks living off social security and medicare, anyone on food stamps, and hey - get rid of the senior discounts while we're at it. We need to stop mollycoddling each other. You work for what you have, or you have nothing and can just die. But not in the graveyard, that's for people who can afford to PAY for the hole in the ground.

There ya go. Problem solved. Just shoot everyone who doesn't measure up to your expectations. I'm sure you'll end up with only the finest, highest-quality servers at McDonald's in no time.

Before this was a problem the terrible issue of , people who were not any clear and present danger to themselves or others, people being held in institutions against their will, so that was solved by a much more enlightened approach to their "outlook" . Perhaps a somewhat different view of what behaviour would need to be institutionalized, even as problematic as that could be, no one here has suggested shooting anyone, accept you, as to my expectations they have done that , in a manner that is informative of human capabilities but not inspirational

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well then the only solution is to shoot them. Clearly you won't want taxpayer dollars helping them, you don't want them in your neighborhood, no one else wants them in their neighborhood, and jails = taxpayer dollars so that's out too. All those undesirables. The infirm, the addicted, the drunk, the unwashed, the insane, the old folks living off social security and medicare, anyone on food stamps, and hey - get rid of the senior discounts while we're at it. We need to stop mollycoddling each other. You work for what you have, or you have nothing and can just die. But not in the graveyard, that's for people who can afford to PAY for the hole in the ground.

There ya go. Problem solved. Just shoot everyone who doesn't measure up to your expectations. I'm sure you'll end up with only the finest, highest-quality servers at McDonald's in no time.

Really now. I believe nearly everyone is sufficiently altruistic to want to assist the truly needy who for whatever reason have fallen on hard times and are unable to support themselves temporarily or for the remainder of their lives. IMHO this group comprises a relatively small fraction of the current homeless population.

The vast majority of the homeless in today's America are people who choose of their own free will to live parasitic lifestyles leeching off the resources of responsible citizens through multiple means. Frankly, I have no sympathy for them.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Really now. I believe nearly everyone is sufficiently altruistic to want to assist the truly needy who for whatever reason have fallen on hard times and are unable to support themselves temporarily or for the remainder of their lives. IMHO this group comprises a relatively small fraction of the current homeless population.

The vast majority of the homeless in today's America are people who choose of their own free will to live parasitic lifestyles leeching off the resources of responsible citizens through multiple means. Frankly, I have no sympathy for them.

First group, of course.
As far as the majority goes, they deserve a degree of sympathy as well, most are mentally ill and lack treatment. They used to be taken care of in institutions until the bleeding hearts decided that their "rights" were being violated and their "freedom" taken away. So now they are on the streets, in the forest, at the train and subway stations. The Staten Island Ferry terminal is loaded with them. Even 40 years ago there were homeless living in the 3 levels of sub-basements at Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn---and since the neighborhood was bad the pathology building where the blood bank was located was locked at street level after 5 PM. The only way to get blood for the ER was to walk through a basement. The stench alone could kill you---and many colleagues would only go down there armed.

I do like Orange's idea of trying to solve the problem rather than shuffling them around, as long as it is done far from here, as well as recognizing it might not be possible. Very difficult to help people who don't want help.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Altavia

All this over one homeless dude...

The original post states there is an "encampment". AFAIK, one person does not make an encampment. This is more of a concern than just "one homeless dude".

[brianherlihy]

thay all steel

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

The problem with providing the homeless with a nice shelter or hotel room, and food, etc., is that it will attract more homeless people to come here. They may sleep in the shelter, but they will be roaming the streets during the day. This would cause a lot of people who came here for a quiet retirement to feel uncomfortable and unsafe. If that situation were to happen in The Villages, I, for one, would move somewhere else. I have a lot of options as to where I can live. But, I am not in favor of making The Villages area a homeless friendly place.

Totally agree. Bus the homeless to the Ocala National Forest. There is plenty of room there.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Altavia

Maybe I missed more than one being reported?

Certainly no evidence of an encampment as sensationalized by the OP.

I saw law enforcement at the bridge two days later and no reports since.

Oh, so the original post was hyperbole? Ya just can't believe anything posted on this forum.