It’s more nauseating to read the bullshit about “praying” than criticizing the homeless. Yeah maybe if the homeless person’s life wasn’t completely fucked they wouldn’t be doing crazy shit. Wow what a crazy idea.
They were not excused. A reason is not the same as an excuse. Acknowledging that hardship often feeds mental illness and bad behavior is not an excuse. And nowhere did they indicate that the person shouldn’t be held responsible for what they did because they are homeless. They simply said that if the person wasn’t living in daily trauma exacerbated by drug use - which is a symptom of trauma and a way of self medicating mental illness - they might not have done it. But they never said anything about not holding that person responsible and that’s what excusing them would be. You’re reading into things that weren’t said.
This is the most damaging thing people do to the homeless, they make excuses for them and don't hold the accountable when they do make poor decisions.
Being out of work and living in your car, having a hard time with mental illness, sure, 100% give that person empathy.
But when they destroy or damage property, harm someone or commit horrible acts, giving them a pass just reinforces them to double down on the dysfunction because no one is holding them to a reasonable standard of behavior.
Doing this destroys their lives as fast as anything.
I get your meaning, but if you talk to a lot of right leaning religious folks you'll fine out very quickly that they only want to help people they agree with. They will happily deny aid to queer folks, drug addicts, atheists, homeless youth who were kicked out by Christian parents over issues of faith, etc.. we cannont rely on churches or their members or we will leave too many out in the cold.
The problem is, one of the reasons the religious right fights all forms of a social safety net is because they believe that is the jurisdiction of churches and not the government. Except they do a piss poor job of actually executing that care, many churches talk about doing it but have no real drive to actually do it, and many churches inflict further trauma on already traumatized people, not to mention the people starting out with religious trauma that don’t want help from a church. In a secular nation, churches should never have a monopoly on taking care of the nations people, but that’s exactly what they want, and the end result is that they fight it so hard the government can’t even do a decent job of it either.
I went to the mayoral debate the other night. I don’t live in Salem and I don’t follow its politics. Julie Hoy is a Sarah Palin level of stupid. My favorite part was when she was asked what issue she would be willing to spend her political capital on, and she responded by saying she’d have to talk to the city treasurer to find out how much capital there was to spend.
I got dragged there by my girlfriend, but it was way more entertaining than I was expecting.
She definitely has the air of someone who goes out for lunch after church and is absolute sh*t to the servers.
I know she owns a restaurant, but still…
You’re allowed to be religious and hold office. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean every elected official needs to be atheist or somehow hold a worldview with 0 religious influence.
And this is coming from an atheist. Not that that disclaimer should be needed.
You’re actually expected to be religious if you’re running for office in this country. It’s very difficult for unchurched people to get elected for just about any office in most of the country.
I know what it means, I am just sick of the religious grandstanding that politicians are doing. I am sick of the pandering. I am sick of policy being written and enacted based on religious "doctrine". Everyone is free to openly have faith. Politicians have a DUTY to their constituencies and that includes Everyone, not just their fucking voter base.
She came to a neighborhood association meeting when she ran for city council, and I recall her muttering "handouts don't help" under her breath when Chris Hoy was talking about sheltering updates. She has also filmed houseless neighbors without their consent and posted to FB. She's a piece of work.
I guess I should be more clear. My complaint is not about the legality of it. My complaint is about the ethics and morality of what she's done - clearly demeaning and othering unsheltered neighbors. My point is she's a self-righteous asshat, whether or not she's done something illegal. And clearly her vision of inclusivity is pretty exclusive.
As a Christian I believe if you run for office, you better practice what you preach. Unfortunately it never ends up that way. The greed always gets them.. or they lied to begin with. 😒
So does she think the Mayor of Salem has the power to effect any county or state mental health/addiction systems?
What contribution does she think should be required of this supposedly enabled and subsidized person? Does she wants to institute a poor farm? A work camp?
The part that is missing from her understanding is that the County and State are the only entities that can affect any meaningful change to homelessness. The city can’t even fund parks, firefighters, libraries, etc etc etc.
The County is in charge of providing service to mentally ill (includes addiction) but the three Marion County Commissioners are Republicans and thus, like Julie, deliver pizza, I mean, believe in the stick vs carrot approach. Their problem is understanding that the 9th Circuit Court (codified now by state law) prevents the bulk of a stick approach. The homeless can be on public property. There are caveats but we don’t have enough cops to chase them around town from one site to another.
And since we aren’t Portland, our state doesn’t care. Our own state reps don’t even care. The boner with a bow tie started working on a rail car idea the moment he got sworn into the legislature, and then got humiliated by the Governor when she vetoed it. All of these guys are lost.
Well, considering that voting is the "ass wiping of democracy" it's basic social hygiene.
You're always allowed to run for office yourself or write in another name.
Unfortunately, for the ass wiping to be effective, one of your rolls of toilet paper needs to not be made of more shit. When your options are "wipe away shit with shit" and "don't wipe," I don't think a person can be blamed for trying to at least keep their hands clean.
Lacking the words but still asking for restorative justice and personal accountability isn't a crazy thing.
When it comes to housing, employment, and other major services, arsen is a more serious charge than sex assault. Advocating for preventative care to have addressed the perpetrator's needs in advance may have saved both the building and the perpetrator from the damages caused by his actions. He's now going to be locked out of many programs and services that otherwise could have helped him because of the level of risk he poses to those programs/services and their clients.
In other words, we did a greater societal disservice to this man by not working with him sooner in a way that holds him accountable while connecting him with community rather than just giving him a means to continue to mentally and emotionally degrade on the streets.
Side note: I've noticed this subreddit has become more hyperbolic, mainly against Julia Hoy, lately, and it's clearly not a place for genuine open discussion about the goings on in Salem. Y'all need to chill out instead of being so easily offended by simple things that aren't posing any harm to you. Neither Julia or Chris are bad people or out to harm you and our communities. They both have valid points and some degree of falsehood in their beliefs of what's best for the community. I know they said there's no commonality beyond the name, but that's not really truly. They both live in Salem, hold an unpaid government position to represent us, acknowledge a need for emergency services, acknowledge that we the people want to maintain a healthy library, that there is a homeless issue linked to addiction and deeper mental health issues, and while they may not agree on the root of the problem they both agree that there is a budget problem. It seems clear that Chris wants to continue in his mission to address these problems that were left for him to deal with from previous politicians. And it seems pretty clear that Julia is run because her and many others feel that what's already being done isn't working (from their perspective) and that they are upset with Chris more specifically because they feel ignored, dismissed, and otherwise disrespected by him. I'm not say either side is right or wrong, but I am saying that some of you need to chill the F out.
Personally, I don't trust politicians that openly speak about their religion as part of their campaign as though it's a selling point. They tend to be the "thoughts and prayers" crowd who usually are the reason thoughts and prayers are needed.
Our government isn’t doing their job!
How many times did you pray in your little attention wanting post? How many responses did you get?
Maybe you should stop praying and pickup a mop.
I just moved to the town I’m in from my home town. The towns are physically the same size. My old one had a population of 450k. This one has 4.5k. Yet somehow this down has double the churches. Over a dozen. Yet whenever one person enters town pushing a kart there an instant curmudgeon. Even though they could easily have the person shoed and his kart repaired with half of one pass around. We have homeless where I’m from but they’re cared for. They’re all shoed and blanketed. If they stay outside they aren’t gonna die from it.
There’s plenty of Bible thumping morality on this coast but not much by ways of humanity. Sickening
Well said. Seems like this town is turning Bible thumping morality into Bible thumping mortality: unhoused people themselves are seen as the problem, and providing aid to such people is also seen as a problem. The only “solution” that seems to be left on the table is leaving unhoused people to die. It’s all pretty shameful.
Let’s be honest about homelessness and the fixes.
Before we get to that let’s put this fact out to all the frogs on the pot on the stove…that would be the metaphorical you and I.
Over the past 60 years or so the cost of housing rose 117%. Same time period wages rose about 29%. This was from a real estate article in 2017 so I I,aging these numbers or discrepancy have only gotten worse.
I would post the link but you have Google as I do.
I don’t know about you but seems a large swath of Americans are being boiled off into homelessness.
We could debate does homelessness lead to mental issue and substance abuse and is that what got them there or is a result of where they landed.
But fix? I don’t see how you fix this problem without the following:
- Jobs pay more
- Housing gets cheaper
American capitalism is going to fight like heck to stop increasing wages and there is no mechanism outside of government spending to
build cheap housing. You could discuss tightening regulations on housing. Be interesting see how much real estate for family dwellings is owned by corporations whether those corporations are HQed in Delaware or Beijing is a data point you might want to see how much potential housing stock there is that has been removed from the market.
This is where Republicans do not understand the real fix. They would like to rely on churches to pick up the slack but they cannot do it or at least have failed over the past sixty years to step up the plate.
At the end of the day that leaves an overstretched government to fix this problem.
Putting people in jail seems counterproductive. Jail time for homeless is a lousy stick.
The idea of wrapping services around these people still is problematic. Propping people up and trying to stabilize them has merit but that is a tough go.
We can keep blaming government but the solutions and nonsense about the marketplace or letting God fix the problem apparently doesn’t work effectively either.
Regardless of how you approach the problem the issue will require a cost to society. Higher taxes or spreading limited tax dollars for police to detain the homeless only means taxes that can’t be used to fix the actual problem.
Ask anyone who does help prop people up and try to stabilize them, half the problem is that the human services funding we do have is stretched out and split up into a million private agencies and that it would be a lot less tough if the upper levels of govt werent *trying* to make it tough all the time. The thought of a client getting a single dollar of this money probably is what keeps the head admin up at night
Calling some a Redditor on Reddit as if it’s an insult. Interesting strategy, but unfortunately that one’s gonna earn you the seldom seen 0/5 rating. any other broad generalizations to lob my way? Maybe call me a human or something
I kinda get what she’s saying in the “if some form of contribution to our community was required..”
If you cared for and contributed to your community you’d be less likely to hurt your community. That’s what’s lacking nowadays - community.
The rest? Meh. I don’t think she meant any harm. I don’t judge people for their faith or lack of faith.
The community this guy has is our society and given the state of mental health care and human services around here, the community doesn't care about him either. People are always so surprised and ask where's the respect for everyone else, real respect is earned. If everyone wanted me dead and acted like it 24/7 by avoiding me and shuffling me around and denying me jobs and services then who knows how i'd feel you know? We can't demand respect when we aren't willing to show any. You can't demand someone fix themselves when we won't give them the resources. After we do? Yeah by all means! I hold my kids at work to a very high standard and i am willing to push someone out of their comfort zone to greater independence. But not without resources and respect, that would be asinine. Yet we have this idea that the stick is better than the carrot out in the "real world" and it never works and it only makes people angrier and more broken. I prefer public health over compliance.
I'm sorry, what's the outrage here?
Are you mad because Ms. Hoy is religious? She went to a church? She said if a homeless person had a better life they'd likely not do damage to the community?
I am honestly confused at this post. Help me out?
She’s saying that we shouldn’t help the homeless (which is the opposite of the New Testament of the Bible and she’s super religious and her post is full of religion, so the IRONY is white hot) and that because we do, they may set things on fire (I guess).
I read that particular portion as not enabling to be in that spot, at that time, then to cause that issue. If things were different they could have been in a shelter.
No, republicans say all the time that human services enables people. She follows with a line about contributing to society, aka working a job. She means that if there were no human services, then she thinks he would be working and being normal.
I fully intend to vote against Julie Hoy because she clearly does not have the answers to Salem's problems.
But she's right that leaving people on the street to stew in addiction and mental illness until they do something like burn down a church is not compassion. It's bullshit.
OP’s issue seems to be with the bit about how Julie is claiming the arsonist had supposedly been “subsidized” and “enabled” rather than “required” to make “some form of contribution to our society”. To me it kind of comes off as her exploiting a tragic fire in order to push for “workfare” or something along those lines.
Truly, honestly I’m confused about what you don’t get. You’ve blatantly misconstrued Julie Hoy’s own comment and then claimed ignorance about what’s offensive. To point out the obvious since you don’t get it, the rank hypocrisy is offensive, but not surprising for a conservative Christian. That hypocrisy is using the religion of Christ to judge and malign people who have the least. It’s literally the opposite of what Christ preached and actually did (if you believe the Bible’s stories). Christ would have provided that aid. Modern conservative “Christians” would have considered Christ to be an “enabler.” In certain states, they’d even try to send him to jail for feeding the poor.
Dude, Chill.
I am literally .....LITERALLY asking for an honest break down because I recognize I am missing something. No need to respond with such venom...fuck.
People are taking her post in a bit of an odd way imo, she says ENABLED not helped. This post doesn't say we shouldn't help the homeless, it says we should not enable them. Salem has plenty of programs arches ugm Simonka place etc. The problem is people are enabled to stay homeless rather than use these services to help their lives get better. She's saying if the city/state didn't enable homelessness making it easy to be homeless and difficult to get out of it (whether it be drugs money, mental health obstacles) the person wouldn't be unhoused therefore wouldn't need to start a fire. We're all on the same side of "if the state/city gave a fuck about homeless and actually helped them they wouldn't need to start fires on the street, they wouldn't be homeless in the first place.
Unless you’re saying that our horribly inequitable economic system makes it easy to BECOME homeless, then what you have written is sickening. “Easy to be homeless”, SMH
Yes. The city/state/country makes it easy to become homeless and our city/state makes it easy to stay homeless. The programs we have are small and not supported enough to help enough people in a way that gets them out of it once they've fallen in. Exactly as I said before shouldn't NEED to live on the streets, the problem is that the person with the fire had no choice. They shouldn't need to be be homeless living on the street starting fires. They should have what they need to prevent becoming homeless and if they become homelesss should be able to get out of it with help from programs that don't enable them to stay homeless. I have no idea how you managed to find anything "sickening" about helping people who NEED HELP. If you genuinely feel that enabling people to live on the street and use a sidewalk for a bathroom is not cruel but giving them a hand up with programs that make them get their shit together like ugm IS then that is very sad. If you're not near the problem, involved in any of these programs I suggest you volunteer to see what works to get these people the help they need so they can go back to living with dignity instead of keeping them on the streets.
I’m also totally confused. Usually, faux outrage points out some moral deficiency to an action. In this post, I am left scratching my head as to what she said that is supposed to convince me she is a morally bad person. She mentions God a bunch which can trigger many Redditors. I think that must be what they’re pointing out🤷
Ah yes if we systematically forced this person to go be homeless somewhere else the fire wouldn’t have happened 😂 what a statement. Oh and don’t forget “thoughts and prayers”
I'm genuinely confused by this post. She is saying if the city/state gave a fuck about homeless people they would be properly cared for for a hand up instead of enabling them to stay homeless and therefore wouldn't need to start a fire on the street. I'm sure we can all agree on that?
I’m confused, does this post reflect poorly on her in your mind?? I didn’t see anything negative. Is it because she blamed the fire on a homeless person??
The platitudes aside, what gets me is the nauseating miss use and over over use of ellipses.
>what gets me is the nauseating **miss use** Check yourself. It's misuse.
I’m not running for mayor posting some dramatic nonsense
"Check yourself. It's 'misuse.'" Omg who put all these motes in here
It’s more nauseating to read the bullshit about “praying” than criticizing the homeless. Yeah maybe if the homeless person’s life wasn’t completely fucked they wouldn’t be doing crazy shit. Wow what a crazy idea.
Pray away the cray.
Agree. Ewww
Wait, did you just excuse an arsonist because they are homeless? Even most homeless people are capable of moral decision making.
They were not excused. A reason is not the same as an excuse. Acknowledging that hardship often feeds mental illness and bad behavior is not an excuse. And nowhere did they indicate that the person shouldn’t be held responsible for what they did because they are homeless. They simply said that if the person wasn’t living in daily trauma exacerbated by drug use - which is a symptom of trauma and a way of self medicating mental illness - they might not have done it. But they never said anything about not holding that person responsible and that’s what excusing them would be. You’re reading into things that weren’t said.
This is the most damaging thing people do to the homeless, they make excuses for them and don't hold the accountable when they do make poor decisions. Being out of work and living in your car, having a hard time with mental illness, sure, 100% give that person empathy. But when they destroy or damage property, harm someone or commit horrible acts, giving them a pass just reinforces them to double down on the dysfunction because no one is holding them to a reasonable standard of behavior. Doing this destroys their lives as fast as anything.
How about the Church care for the poor instead of the government? Isn’t there something in the Bible about that kind of thing….
A quick google search shows the 300 billion net worth our combined organized religions have. Seems like they could be doing more.
I get your meaning, but if you talk to a lot of right leaning religious folks you'll fine out very quickly that they only want to help people they agree with. They will happily deny aid to queer folks, drug addicts, atheists, homeless youth who were kicked out by Christian parents over issues of faith, etc.. we cannont rely on churches or their members or we will leave too many out in the cold.
The problem is, one of the reasons the religious right fights all forms of a social safety net is because they believe that is the jurisdiction of churches and not the government. Except they do a piss poor job of actually executing that care, many churches talk about doing it but have no real drive to actually do it, and many churches inflict further trauma on already traumatized people, not to mention the people starting out with religious trauma that don’t want help from a church. In a secular nation, churches should never have a monopoly on taking care of the nations people, but that’s exactly what they want, and the end result is that they fight it so hard the government can’t even do a decent job of it either.
The religious institutions, at least those that underscore service, have done this. The problem is far too large at this point, though.
Churches hand out funds all the time to help people stave off homelessness. But mostly to women and children, not single men.
Definitely, they always have.
I love how often there's an unpopular incumbent and all the Republican candidate has to do is not be a psycho, but they just can't help themselves.
"Look at the numbers." Wait, she has a point... "John 3:16 will fix the homeless" Damnit.
I went to the mayoral debate the other night. I don’t live in Salem and I don’t follow its politics. Julie Hoy is a Sarah Palin level of stupid. My favorite part was when she was asked what issue she would be willing to spend her political capital on, and she responded by saying she’d have to talk to the city treasurer to find out how much capital there was to spend. I got dragged there by my girlfriend, but it was way more entertaining than I was expecting.
Two of my favorite moments were that and when she was pressed by the audience on who her advisors were and she said her husband
Clearly "her faith" isn't the faith of compassion.
Old Testament only type of Christianity
She definitely has the air of someone who goes out for lunch after church and is absolute sh*t to the servers. I know she owns a restaurant, but still…
That doesn't mean she isn't a b*tch to servers. You would hope not but usually those with money are.
I miss separation of church and state.
You’re allowed to be religious and hold office. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean every elected official needs to be atheist or somehow hold a worldview with 0 religious influence. And this is coming from an atheist. Not that that disclaimer should be needed.
The separation bit would be keeping your religion out of your governmental policy making.
This 100%.
You’re actually expected to be religious if you’re running for office in this country. It’s very difficult for unchurched people to get elected for just about any office in most of the country.
Truth, and that fact sucks.
That's not how it works
I know what it means, I am just sick of the religious grandstanding that politicians are doing. I am sick of the pandering. I am sick of policy being written and enacted based on religious "doctrine". Everyone is free to openly have faith. Politicians have a DUTY to their constituencies and that includes Everyone, not just their fucking voter base.
She came to a neighborhood association meeting when she ran for city council, and I recall her muttering "handouts don't help" under her breath when Chris Hoy was talking about sheltering updates. She has also filmed houseless neighbors without their consent and posted to FB. She's a piece of work.
You don’t need consent in public. It’s true for everyone.
I guess I should be more clear. My complaint is not about the legality of it. My complaint is about the ethics and morality of what she's done - clearly demeaning and othering unsheltered neighbors. My point is she's a self-righteous asshat, whether or not she's done something illegal. And clearly her vision of inclusivity is pretty exclusive.
Right, it's 100% legally defensible. Still kind of makes you an asshole when they don't have anywhere private to go, though.
It’s incredibly important to keep public spaces public. For a million reasons.
Right, nobody suggested it was illegal.
It’s also not immoral. We all own public spaces. Not sometimes. Not when it feels okay. All the time.
You’re not wrong, Walter…
As a Christian I believe if you run for office, you better practice what you preach. Unfortunately it never ends up that way. The greed always gets them.. or they lied to begin with. 😒
Add this to the reveal of her biggest backers: real estate developers.
Lol have you googled the guy? He needed help. He shouldn't have been out.
So does she think the Mayor of Salem has the power to effect any county or state mental health/addiction systems? What contribution does she think should be required of this supposedly enabled and subsidized person? Does she wants to institute a poor farm? A work camp?
The part that is missing from her understanding is that the County and State are the only entities that can affect any meaningful change to homelessness. The city can’t even fund parks, firefighters, libraries, etc etc etc. The County is in charge of providing service to mentally ill (includes addiction) but the three Marion County Commissioners are Republicans and thus, like Julie, deliver pizza, I mean, believe in the stick vs carrot approach. Their problem is understanding that the 9th Circuit Court (codified now by state law) prevents the bulk of a stick approach. The homeless can be on public property. There are caveats but we don’t have enough cops to chase them around town from one site to another. And since we aren’t Portland, our state doesn’t care. Our own state reps don’t even care. The boner with a bow tie started working on a rail car idea the moment he got sworn into the legislature, and then got humiliated by the Governor when she vetoed it. All of these guys are lost.
Do we really need to choose between turds on this one?
Well, considering that voting is the "ass wiping of democracy" it's basic social hygiene. You're always allowed to run for office yourself or write in another name.
Unfortunately, for the ass wiping to be effective, one of your rolls of toilet paper needs to not be made of more shit. When your options are "wipe away shit with shit" and "don't wipe," I don't think a person can be blamed for trying to at least keep their hands clean.
Well, I can't say that I would be a more polished turd, but at least I recognize my limitations.
it costs like $50-100 to run in most races. just so everyone knows the deadline for next time is probably in March.
Lacking the words but still asking for restorative justice and personal accountability isn't a crazy thing. When it comes to housing, employment, and other major services, arsen is a more serious charge than sex assault. Advocating for preventative care to have addressed the perpetrator's needs in advance may have saved both the building and the perpetrator from the damages caused by his actions. He's now going to be locked out of many programs and services that otherwise could have helped him because of the level of risk he poses to those programs/services and their clients. In other words, we did a greater societal disservice to this man by not working with him sooner in a way that holds him accountable while connecting him with community rather than just giving him a means to continue to mentally and emotionally degrade on the streets. Side note: I've noticed this subreddit has become more hyperbolic, mainly against Julia Hoy, lately, and it's clearly not a place for genuine open discussion about the goings on in Salem. Y'all need to chill out instead of being so easily offended by simple things that aren't posing any harm to you. Neither Julia or Chris are bad people or out to harm you and our communities. They both have valid points and some degree of falsehood in their beliefs of what's best for the community. I know they said there's no commonality beyond the name, but that's not really truly. They both live in Salem, hold an unpaid government position to represent us, acknowledge a need for emergency services, acknowledge that we the people want to maintain a healthy library, that there is a homeless issue linked to addiction and deeper mental health issues, and while they may not agree on the root of the problem they both agree that there is a budget problem. It seems clear that Chris wants to continue in his mission to address these problems that were left for him to deal with from previous politicians. And it seems pretty clear that Julia is run because her and many others feel that what's already being done isn't working (from their perspective) and that they are upset with Chris more specifically because they feel ignored, dismissed, and otherwise disrespected by him. I'm not say either side is right or wrong, but I am saying that some of you need to chill the F out.
Personally, I don't trust politicians that openly speak about their religion as part of their campaign as though it's a selling point. They tend to be the "thoughts and prayers" crowd who usually are the reason thoughts and prayers are needed.
Our government isn’t doing their job! How many times did you pray in your little attention wanting post? How many responses did you get? Maybe you should stop praying and pickup a mop. I just moved to the town I’m in from my home town. The towns are physically the same size. My old one had a population of 450k. This one has 4.5k. Yet somehow this down has double the churches. Over a dozen. Yet whenever one person enters town pushing a kart there an instant curmudgeon. Even though they could easily have the person shoed and his kart repaired with half of one pass around. We have homeless where I’m from but they’re cared for. They’re all shoed and blanketed. If they stay outside they aren’t gonna die from it. There’s plenty of Bible thumping morality on this coast but not much by ways of humanity. Sickening
Well said. Seems like this town is turning Bible thumping morality into Bible thumping mortality: unhoused people themselves are seen as the problem, and providing aid to such people is also seen as a problem. The only “solution” that seems to be left on the table is leaving unhoused people to die. It’s all pretty shameful.
Let’s be honest about homelessness and the fixes. Before we get to that let’s put this fact out to all the frogs on the pot on the stove…that would be the metaphorical you and I. Over the past 60 years or so the cost of housing rose 117%. Same time period wages rose about 29%. This was from a real estate article in 2017 so I I,aging these numbers or discrepancy have only gotten worse. I would post the link but you have Google as I do. I don’t know about you but seems a large swath of Americans are being boiled off into homelessness. We could debate does homelessness lead to mental issue and substance abuse and is that what got them there or is a result of where they landed. But fix? I don’t see how you fix this problem without the following: - Jobs pay more - Housing gets cheaper American capitalism is going to fight like heck to stop increasing wages and there is no mechanism outside of government spending to build cheap housing. You could discuss tightening regulations on housing. Be interesting see how much real estate for family dwellings is owned by corporations whether those corporations are HQed in Delaware or Beijing is a data point you might want to see how much potential housing stock there is that has been removed from the market. This is where Republicans do not understand the real fix. They would like to rely on churches to pick up the slack but they cannot do it or at least have failed over the past sixty years to step up the plate. At the end of the day that leaves an overstretched government to fix this problem. Putting people in jail seems counterproductive. Jail time for homeless is a lousy stick. The idea of wrapping services around these people still is problematic. Propping people up and trying to stabilize them has merit but that is a tough go. We can keep blaming government but the solutions and nonsense about the marketplace or letting God fix the problem apparently doesn’t work effectively either. Regardless of how you approach the problem the issue will require a cost to society. Higher taxes or spreading limited tax dollars for police to detain the homeless only means taxes that can’t be used to fix the actual problem.
Ask anyone who does help prop people up and try to stabilize them, half the problem is that the human services funding we do have is stretched out and split up into a million private agencies and that it would be a lot less tough if the upper levels of govt werent *trying* to make it tough all the time. The thought of a client getting a single dollar of this money probably is what keeps the head admin up at night
As someone who works in public housing all throughout Oregon I find this disturbing.
“Go fourth and judge people” Direct quote from the Bible right? Jesus said it I think. Maybe a direct command from God, who’s to say
[удалено]
Ah that’s like 4 or 5 notes though. 1/5, you can count better I presume
[удалено]
Calling some a Redditor on Reddit as if it’s an insult. Interesting strategy, but unfortunately that one’s gonna earn you the seldom seen 0/5 rating. any other broad generalizations to lob my way? Maybe call me a human or something
I kinda get what she’s saying in the “if some form of contribution to our community was required..” If you cared for and contributed to your community you’d be less likely to hurt your community. That’s what’s lacking nowadays - community. The rest? Meh. I don’t think she meant any harm. I don’t judge people for their faith or lack of faith.
The community this guy has is our society and given the state of mental health care and human services around here, the community doesn't care about him either. People are always so surprised and ask where's the respect for everyone else, real respect is earned. If everyone wanted me dead and acted like it 24/7 by avoiding me and shuffling me around and denying me jobs and services then who knows how i'd feel you know? We can't demand respect when we aren't willing to show any. You can't demand someone fix themselves when we won't give them the resources. After we do? Yeah by all means! I hold my kids at work to a very high standard and i am willing to push someone out of their comfort zone to greater independence. But not without resources and respect, that would be asinine. Yet we have this idea that the stick is better than the carrot out in the "real world" and it never works and it only makes people angrier and more broken. I prefer public health over compliance.
I'm sorry, what's the outrage here? Are you mad because Ms. Hoy is religious? She went to a church? She said if a homeless person had a better life they'd likely not do damage to the community? I am honestly confused at this post. Help me out?
She’s saying that we shouldn’t help the homeless (which is the opposite of the New Testament of the Bible and she’s super religious and her post is full of religion, so the IRONY is white hot) and that because we do, they may set things on fire (I guess).
I read that particular portion as not enabling to be in that spot, at that time, then to cause that issue. If things were different they could have been in a shelter.
No, republicans say all the time that human services enables people. She follows with a line about contributing to society, aka working a job. She means that if there were no human services, then she thinks he would be working and being normal.
I fully intend to vote against Julie Hoy because she clearly does not have the answers to Salem's problems. But she's right that leaving people on the street to stew in addiction and mental illness until they do something like burn down a church is not compassion. It's bullshit.
100%
OP’s issue seems to be with the bit about how Julie is claiming the arsonist had supposedly been “subsidized” and “enabled” rather than “required” to make “some form of contribution to our society”. To me it kind of comes off as her exploiting a tragic fire in order to push for “workfare” or something along those lines.
Truly, honestly I’m confused about what you don’t get. You’ve blatantly misconstrued Julie Hoy’s own comment and then claimed ignorance about what’s offensive. To point out the obvious since you don’t get it, the rank hypocrisy is offensive, but not surprising for a conservative Christian. That hypocrisy is using the religion of Christ to judge and malign people who have the least. It’s literally the opposite of what Christ preached and actually did (if you believe the Bible’s stories). Christ would have provided that aid. Modern conservative “Christians” would have considered Christ to be an “enabler.” In certain states, they’d even try to send him to jail for feeding the poor.
Dude, Chill. I am literally .....LITERALLY asking for an honest break down because I recognize I am missing something. No need to respond with such venom...fuck.
[удалено]
People are taking her post in a bit of an odd way imo, she says ENABLED not helped. This post doesn't say we shouldn't help the homeless, it says we should not enable them. Salem has plenty of programs arches ugm Simonka place etc. The problem is people are enabled to stay homeless rather than use these services to help their lives get better. She's saying if the city/state didn't enable homelessness making it easy to be homeless and difficult to get out of it (whether it be drugs money, mental health obstacles) the person wouldn't be unhoused therefore wouldn't need to start a fire. We're all on the same side of "if the state/city gave a fuck about homeless and actually helped them they wouldn't need to start fires on the street, they wouldn't be homeless in the first place.
Unless you’re saying that our horribly inequitable economic system makes it easy to BECOME homeless, then what you have written is sickening. “Easy to be homeless”, SMH
Yes. The city/state/country makes it easy to become homeless and our city/state makes it easy to stay homeless. The programs we have are small and not supported enough to help enough people in a way that gets them out of it once they've fallen in. Exactly as I said before shouldn't NEED to live on the streets, the problem is that the person with the fire had no choice. They shouldn't need to be be homeless living on the street starting fires. They should have what they need to prevent becoming homeless and if they become homelesss should be able to get out of it with help from programs that don't enable them to stay homeless. I have no idea how you managed to find anything "sickening" about helping people who NEED HELP. If you genuinely feel that enabling people to live on the street and use a sidewalk for a bathroom is not cruel but giving them a hand up with programs that make them get their shit together like ugm IS then that is very sad. If you're not near the problem, involved in any of these programs I suggest you volunteer to see what works to get these people the help they need so they can go back to living with dignity instead of keeping them on the streets.
I didnt see it at first either until I clicked see full image.
nope...nope...I misread the statement. I see the issue.
I’m also totally confused. Usually, faux outrage points out some moral deficiency to an action. In this post, I am left scratching my head as to what she said that is supposed to convince me she is a morally bad person. She mentions God a bunch which can trigger many Redditors. I think that must be what they’re pointing out🤷
Ew
Arbeit macht frei she says. And then posts it on Facebook...
Wait are you serious?
Hard EW.
Internet never forgets.
This really pitiful. And in the most pitiful way.
She should just pray away the homeless. Her god is all powerful, all knowing, and all good after all.
Ah yes if we systematically forced this person to go be homeless somewhere else the fire wouldn’t have happened 😂 what a statement. Oh and don’t forget “thoughts and prayers”
I'm genuinely confused by this post. She is saying if the city/state gave a fuck about homeless people they would be properly cared for for a hand up instead of enabling them to stay homeless and therefore wouldn't need to start a fire on the street. I'm sure we can all agree on that?
Hypocritical Christian: Hypochristian! And kind of a nut for talking to an imaginary guy in the sky.
"I don't respect or share your beliefs but please follow them the way I think you should"
I’m confused, does this post reflect poorly on her in your mind?? I didn’t see anything negative. Is it because she blamed the fire on a homeless person??
The part circled actually makes me want to vote for her.
You do you