Law Oklahoma Senator's War on the homeless:

[Sinister]

A sign of what's to come perhaps:

"Specifically, SB 484 says:

“No municipality of this state with a population less than three hundred thousand (300,000) according to the most recent Federal Decennial Census shall provide programs or services to homeless persons including, but not limited to, owning or leasing land for the purpose of building or maintaining a homeless shelter.”

Any municipality that meets the population requirement set forth in subsection B of this section that is providing programs or services to homeless persons on the effective date of this act shall immediately terminate such services and, if the municipality currently owns or leases land for the purpose of building or maintaining a homeless shelter, cease using the land for such purpose.”

The bill defines a homeless person as anyone who:

• Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence
• Has as a primary nighttime residence a publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations
• Has as a primary nighttime residence a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings

Or

• Persons and families who do not have access to normal accommodations as a result of violence or the threat of violence from a cohabitant.

I really like that last one. If someone in you're house is trying to kill or harm you or your kids, tough sh*t.

Weiterleitungshinweis

But hey criminalizing homelessness is a good way to pack those prisons full of cheap labor.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

 

[Natural Order]

So you believe each town in the state should have a government funded homeless shelter to use? Tell us where your borders for services are? I'm sure you don't have any, money grows on trees and we can accommodate all manner of social assistance.

Or do you think it's far more cost effective to amalgamate and centralize in areas more conducive to opportunities and potential living arrangements?

Oklahoma is not a large piece of land whatsoever. The ability for anybody to pickup and move to one of the two cities, which lay fairly well spaced and well centered in the region, should be rather trivial.

 

[Sinister]

So you believe each town in the state should have a government funded homeless shelter to use? Tell us where your borders for services are? I'm sure you don't have any, money grows on trees and we can accommodate all manner of social assistance.

Or do you think it's far more cost effective to amalgamate and centralize in areas more conducive to opportunities and potential living arrangements?

Oklahoma is not a large piece of land whatsoever. The ability for anybody to pickup and move to one of the two cities, which lay fairly well spaced and well centered in the region, should be rather trivial.

What? Of course towns should be able to make homeless shelters if they want to. What kind of question is that? Lol

So you literally think people with no homes in towns banned from giving them services should just...go to the City.

Can't write this stuff.

 

[Natural Order]

What? Of course towns should be able to make homeless shelters if they want to. What kind of question is that? Lol

So you literally think people with no homes in towns banned from giving them services should just...go to the City.

Can't write this stuff.

When you believe resources are infinite, any whimsical idea sounds sane.

 

[Natural Order]

People with no resources should most certainly receive social services like these in cities, where all manner of need is centralized and accessible.

There will most certainly be halfway houses and facilities for battered women/families.....but @Sinister likes to lump it all into "homeless shelters".....

 

[Sinister]

People with no resources should most certainly receive social services like these in cities, where all manner of need is centralized and accessible.

There will most certainly be halfway houses and facilities for battered women/families.....but @Sinister likes to lump it all into "homeless shelters".....

This isn't my bill guy. The bill is lumping it all in together. @Natural Order is just cool with suggesting homeless people be required to travel to get services

 

[WhitestKidU’Know]

Seems like they want to both fill prisons up, and funnel people into the cities so that they can continue to steal all the resources from rural America and funnel it to the richest people at the top.

 

[Sinister]

When you believe resources are infinite, any whimsical idea sounds sane.

This has nothing to do with believing resources are infinite. This bill doesn't say "because resources." This is a blanket ban on municipalities doing any outreach for their homeless.

 

[Natural Order]

This isn't my bill guy. The bill is lumping it all in together. @Natural Order is just cool with suggesting homeless people be required to travel to get services l

Absolutely. If you're unable to manage your own direction and require serious government assistance, to some degree they should be able to dictate the terms of assistance (within humane requirements of course - none of what I'm suggesting is even close to inhumane you fucking dolt)

Same with people collecting pogie/welfare/ei whatever the fuck you call it....guess what? There's work to be done around the city or town and you'll earn every dollar while you're an able bodied, work age human being.

You're a delusional can with no idea on how to do things efficiently....and retort from a nonsensical moral position that doesn't exist.

 

[Natural Order]

This has nothing to do with believing resources are infinite. This bill doesn't say "because resources." This is a blanket ban on municipalities doing any outreach for their homeless.

Correct. Because the funding that may typically be wasted being spread out, would be better served in centralized formats. The service and efficiency is there. You just have no ability to hand control over to terms when somebody hits rock bottom (in most cases through poor choices), and you feel like those requirements are degrading. It's nonsense.

 

[cooks1]

So you believe each town in the state should have a government funded homeless shelter to use? Tell us where your borders for services are? I'm sure you don't have any, money grows on trees and we can accommodate all manner of social assistance.

Or do you think it's far more cost effective to amalgamate and centralize in areas more conducive to opportunities and potential living arrangements?

Oklahoma is not a large piece of land whatsoever. The ability for anybody to pickup and move to one of the two cities, which lay fairly well spaced and well centered in the region, should be rather trivial.

No one is saying each town should or must have a government funded homeless shelter. But this legislation is saying unless you are OKC or Tulsa, you can't have a government funded homeless shelter. Which, ironically, will end up costing the smaller cities money, not saving them. It is much more cost effective to have a homeless shelter for 100 people than to billet those 100 homeless people in jail.

 

[Natural Order]

Bring in more migrants....it's sure to help this situation.....

No one is saying each town should or must have a government funded homeless shelter. But this legislation is saying unless you are OKC or Tulsa, you can't have a government funded homeless shelter. Which, ironically, will end up costing the smaller cities money, not saving them. It is much more cost effective to have a homeless shelter for 100 people than to billet those 100 homeless people in jail.

So tell me your borders, as was asked of @Sinister, who so easily ducked it.....

You're also not thinking properly. Funding to create centralized, huge systems of housing to deal with the load. This situation is much more suitably handled with a centralized vision than spreading it out huge rural areas.

 

[Natural Order]

I'd certainly make one caveat here though.....if a home or church wishes to house people under their own provision and care, by all means. That's the most heartwarming outcome of this situation but it certainly wouldn't account for anywhere near the majority of situations.

Government funding is the issue, and it should be appropriately focused to the most efficient levels possible.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Good christ, I don't do a lot of serious posting, but even if I did this new broken ass format is just wretchedly unpleasant

 

[cooks1]

Bring in more migrants....it's sure to help this situation.....

So tell me your borders, as was asked of @Sinister, who so easily ducked it.....

You're also not thinking properly. Funding to create centralized, huge systems of housing to deal with the load. This situation is much more suitable handled with a centralized vision than parsing it out huge rural areas.

My Borders? I'm not a city in Oklahoma. But a city in Oklahoma that's finds itself billeting 50-100 homeless people in it's jail cells every night might just benefit from having a homeless shelter, and they could tell you their borders. Shit, a lot of large and small cities all over the country are letting actual criminals out of jail just so they can billet all the mentally ill, chemically dependent, and homeless (many of whom are also mentally ill and/or chemically dependent). Stop for a moment and reflect on the folly of that.

There can be utility in centralization. But it's not always optimal. I must have missed the part of this where they talked about the in depth analysis that showed they can provide much better outcomes with the abundance of underused homeless resources in the big cities.

Why are you not advocating for Tulsa and OKC to provide all the drivers licenses and rectal exams?

 

[Natural Order]

Imagine ever supporting the $$$ to Ukraine while simultaneously complaining about the lack of funding at home. You're not in that camp, are you @Sinister?

My Borders? I'm not a city in Oklahoma. But a city in Oklahoma that's finds itself billeting 50-100 homeless people in it's jail cells every night might just benefit from having a homeless shelter, and they could tell you their borders. Shit, a lot of large and small cities all over the country are letting actual criminals out of jail just so they can billet all the mentally ill, chemically dependent, and homeless (many of whom are also mentally ill and/or chemically dependent). Stop for a moment and reflect on the folly of that.

There can be utility in centralization. But it's not always optimal. I must have missed the part of this where they talked about the in depth analysis that showed they can provide much better outcomes with the abundance of underused homeless resources in the big cities.

Why are you not advocating for Tulsa and OKC to provide all the drivers licenses and rectal exams?

That's right. The county would shuttle them to the centers in the city where their needs would be met. You feelin'?

Driver's licenses and rectal exams are not burdens on society. What an inept analogy.

 

[Natural Order]

Efficiency and empathy can work together you complete cans.

 

[cooks1]

Imagine ever supporting the $$$ to Ukraine while simultaneously complaining about the lack of funding at home. You're not in that camp, are you @Sinister?

That's right. The county would shuttle them to the centers in the city where their needs would be met. You feelin'?

Driver's licenses and rectal exams are not burdens on society. What an inept analogy.

IF OKC and Tulsa have an abundance of underutilized resources for the homeless, it would certainly make sense to divert homeless to there. But there has not been any evidence presented in this thread that's the case. I'm no expert on Tulsa and OKC- but they would be rare cities indeed if they had surplus resources for homeless. Generally larger cities are even more stretched for resources than smaller ones.

And why should things have to be burdens on society to be done in the most efficient manner? If there are an abundance of people ready to stick their fingers up asses in OKC and not enough asses for them to check, surely it would be most efficient to bus those people to OKC for their fingerbangin.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

A sign of what's to come perhaps:

"Specifically, SB 484 says:

“No municipality of this state with a population less than three hundred thousand (300,000) according to the most recent Federal Decennial Census shall provide programs or services to homeless persons including, but not limited to, owning or leasing land for the purpose of building or maintaining a homeless shelter.”

Any municipality that meets the population requirement set forth in subsection B of this section that is providing programs or services to homeless persons on the effective date of this act shall immediately terminate such services and, if the municipality currently owns or leases land for the purpose of building or maintaining a homeless shelter, cease using the land for such purpose.”

The bill defines a homeless person as anyone who:

• Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence
• Has as a primary nighttime residence a publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations
• Has as a primary nighttime residence a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings

Or

• Persons and families who do not have access to normal accommodations as a result of violence or the threat of violence from a cohabitant.

I really like that last one. If someone in you're house is trying to kill or harm you or your kids, tough sh*t.

Weiterleitungshinweis

But hey criminalizing homelessness is a good way to pack those prisons full of cheap labor.

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...an-the-streets-of-balneário-camboriú.4349970/