Jump to content
Paulding.com

There are homeless problems in Marietta. Will Dallas be next?


Recommended Posts

https://www.mdjonline.com/news/residents-talk-homelessness-with-marietta-councilwoman-richardson-at-town-hall/article_0ef9b7c6-d316-11e8-a294-63a2227e0934.html

MARIETTA — Residents of Marietta’s Ward 1 have been noticing more homeless people around lately.

That ward includes much of south Marietta, below Roswell Street between Powder Springs Street and Franklin Gateway. Its representative on the Marietta City Council, Cheryl Richardson, raised the homeless problem at a town hall meeting Wednesday night at Marietta City Hall.

“If you go anywhere around Ward 1, and I know it’s in other wards also, if you go anywhere around Ward 1, you’ll see the problem we are having with the homeless,” she said. “I’ve got pictures tonight sent to me. They are sleeping in Victory Park. They are fighting with each other in Victory Park. There is trash being left in Victory Park.”

Richardson said part of the reason the homeless stay at Victory Park is that there is a group that comes and feeds them there on Tuesdays, but she said other parts of her ward are also seeing more homeless people. That includes the area near Parkway Plaza at South Marietta Parkway and Fairground Street near Food Depot, Zaxby’s and QuikTrip.

“I can’t go to QuikTrip to get a soda without being panhandled, harassed, cat-called,” Richardson said. “I take a Rottweiler with me.”

“You can’t even get air in your tires,” one town hall attendee agreed.

“You can’t even get air in your tires because they sit by the air pump now,” Richardson replied.

Marietta Police Major Steve Kish, who took over command of the city’s Zone 3 last month, said homelessness is one of Marietta’s biggest problems, and the police are working to solve it.


Sign up

“We’ve got an initiative we’re working right now, ... (we’re) identifying a lot of the camps where they’re staying throughout the city,” he said. “We’ve had some issues with them staying under the underpasses, we’re trying to identify whose jurisdiction they are. If it’s not ours, it’s Cobb County. If it’s not Cobb County, it’s DOT ... We’re trying to step in and do what we can with that.”

Richardson said she feels for the homeless, especially the veterans. She referenced a recent study showing 30 percent of Cobb’s homeless are veterans.

“I’m a veteran,” she said. “I don’t want to be (incompassionate) for the veterans or any homeless. I feel for them. But I also feel for anybody who wants to step out of their house, like I do behind the Texaco station, like many of you do outside Victory Park, like people who try to go to QuikTrip, to go to Zaxby’s and have to go through the parade of homeless.”

One resident at the meeting asked about organizations like United Way and MUST Ministries that serve the homeless.

Richardson said those groups do good work for people who want help, but are not a solution to the current problem.

“These are people, whether they are urban campers or urban residents, who choose to be homeless, who United Way (and) MUST Ministries can’t help ... All of these people require you give up drinking, you give up drugs. If you require medication, you take the medication. You do the program. These are people who don’t want that, whether because they can’t mentally comply or they just aren’t interested in complying,” Richardson said.

Another resident suggested a central location where homeless people could stay. Richardson dismissed that out of hand.

“Oh my God. Oh my goodness,” she said. “Are you trying to get me put on the front page of the paper?”

A similar proposal discussed by Cobb government officials drew criticism earlier this year.

Richardson asked individuals in the audience, which numbered about two dozen, whether they would want a tent city on their street.

“We’re going to put out an unstructured tent city of homeless where? ... We’ve got drugs. We’ve got families because there’s women with their children. We’ve got alcohol. We’ve got people who have mental issues ... We’re going to let them all live in one area together?” Richardson said. “We need them in programs, but if they’re not going to be in programs, we’ve got to figure out what to do.”

Also off the table are laws or city ordinances targeting the homeless, Richardson said.

“We can’t have any legislation or anything that looks like it targets homeless,” she said. “So we can’t do anything that says no sleeping in parks. Clearly, people who have somewhere to go and sleep do not sleep in the park. We can’t say no feeding in the park because clearly, people who have somewhere to go eat do not eat in the park, unless they’re at a party. So we can’t have something that has the appearance of targeting the homeless, because it’s going to get shot down ... The ACLU descends quickly on cities and states and takes up that fight.”

Richardson said she hopes to find some tenable solutions early next month at the National League of Cities’ annual city summit conference in Los Angeles. Richardson announced Wednesday she will pay to attend the conference rather than let the city foot the bill.

“To me, this is important enough of an issue that I want to see what other cities outside of Georgia are doing,” she said. “Marietta is not like any other Georgia city. It’s not that we’re special, but we truly are different ... When cities are looking at how do we do things, often they look to Marietta. It is hard for us to look to any other city. We can’t look to Atlanta. We’re not like Atlanta ... We’ve got to get ideas from somewhere else.”

TRAFFIC ISSUES ALSO RAISED

Traffic safety was another major topic at the town hall, with residents complaining of drivers speeding through their neighborhoods to avoid traffic on major thoroughfares.

Richardson said she has been looking into several solutions, but has run into complications. She said police told her they cannot use radar on streets with speed limits of 25 miles per hour, and she has run into resistance when proposing speed humps in neighborhoods.

“People say to me, what’s it going to take for the speed to slow down, when a child gets killed?” Richardson said. “No. I really want the speed to slow down before anybody is killed, a child, a cat, a dog, anyone, but you’ve got to help me figure out how to do that, because if not speed humps, then what?”

Richardson called on her constituents to reach out to her and share their opinions on matters such as speed humps, sidewalks and other changes they’d like to see around the ward.

She also pledged to hold similar town hall meetings on a quarterly basis, but said the time and day of the week may have to change to allow more people to attend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just leave this right here:

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly the type of problem that can't be solved by capitalism.

 

Why?

 

Because the absolute requirement for capitalist to work, people need to be rational. The homeless are not rational ... they suffer (like about 25 percent of the rest of us) of mental illness and maladies from paranoia to autism, bi-polar disorder to physical disability and everything in between. It often took decades to create these mental cripples and addressing their problems will take copious amounts of compassion, mercy, money and effort with a likelihood that a large portion will fail to attain full rationality. The problem is intractable.

 

The inappropriately self-righteous amongst us had a solution about seven or eight decades ago in that central European nation ... I think they called it the final solution. It was based on the rational efficiency of eliminating such intractable problems with mass-production techniques of eliminating problems with the added benefit, when those problems were eliminated, it left more plunder for the greedy (aka: capitalist) leaders.

 

Indeed, capitalism never had an answer for the mentally crippled as the only capitalistic rule engraved in stone is make a profit for the owner.

 

The truth is that no matter how 'capitalist' you think you are, if you wish to address the issue of homelessness, you're going to have to employ socialist concepts if not structures (non-profit organizations, etc.)

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ronald Reagan had a salutation; close all the mental institutions that once cared for these people and shove them out onto the streets. Basically it's the same approach they are taking to healthcare today.

 

 

"For those of us who encounter people experiencing homelessness on a daily basis, this is not surprising.

Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness."

 

http://www.povertyinsights.org/2013/10/14/did-reagans-crazy-mental-health-policies-cause-todays-homelessness/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ronald Reagan had a salutation; close all the mental institutions that once cared for these people and shove them out onto the streets. Basically it's the same approach they are taking to healthcare today.

 

That's a lie

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly the type of problem that can't be solved by capitalism.

 

Why?

 

Because the absolute requirement for capitalist to work, people need to be rational. The homeless are not rational ... they suffer (like about 25 percent of the rest of us) of mental illness and maladies from paranoia to autism, bi-polar disorder to physical disability and everything in between. It often took decades to create these mental cripples and addressing their problems will take copious amounts of compassion, mercy, money and effort with a likelihood that a large portion will fail to attain full rationality. The problem is intractable.

 

The inappropriately self-righteous amongst us had a solution about seven or eight decades ago in that central European nation ... I think they called it the final solution. It was based on the rational efficiency of eliminating such intractable problems with mass-production techniques of eliminating problems with the added benefit, when those problems were eliminated, it left more plunder for the greedy (aka: capitalist) leaders.

 

Indeed, capitalism never had an answer for the mentally crippled as the only capitalistic rule engraved in stone is make a profit for the owner.

 

The truth is that no matter how 'capitalist' you think you are, if you wish to address the issue of homelessness, you're going to have to employ socialist concepts if not structures (non-profit organizations, etc.)

 

pubby

I will agree that the homeless issue cannot totally be solved by capitalism, and that is because many of the homeless are not that way because of money at all. Mental illness is a major factor.

 

But capitalism is a component in the solution. A vibrant economy that is producing lots of good jobs will address a portion of the homeless. But dedicating more resources to dealing with mental illness will be needed, and capitalism is the engine that will produce the tax revenues to have sufficient resources to fund that.

 

Accomplishing these things will also require much more dedication to being fiscally responsible in government of all levels. But that is where one of the main problems comes in; our politicians continue to blow taxpayer dollars to buy votes and political power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree that the homeless issue cannot totally be solved by capitalism, and that is because many of the homeless are not that way because of money at all. Mental illness is a major factor.

 

But capitalism is a component in the solution. A vibrant economy that is producing lots of good jobs will address a portion of the homeless. But dedicating more resources to dealing with mental illness will be needed, and capitalism is the engine that will produce the tax revenues to have sufficient resources to fund that.

 

Accomplishing these things will also require much more dedication to being fiscally responsible in government of all levels. But that is where one of the main problems comes in; our politicians continue to blow taxpayer dollars to buy votes and political power.

 

This is where any real analysis of budgets and priorities shows that meme from the 1980s, based in large part on the welfare queen dog whistle, has kept the US far from attaining the contribution levels of other OECD nations. Indeed, all the top ten nations contribute greater than 25 percent of their GDP to social welfare spending while the US currently ranks at #21 with a 19.1 percent of GDP going to social welfare programs. Of course the US relies heavily on private expenditures (churches and other welfare organizations) which dilutes is buying power and efficiency meaning politicians haven't been out buying votes.

 

Hell, Donald, with his pie-in-the-sky promises to protect social security, medicare and medicaid - not to mention the 10 percent tax cut to take place before the elections in 13 days - are bull cheese.

 

Speaking, however, of using politics and law to buy votes; know that the very wealthy are smart enough to figure out that it is a lot cheaper to buy a majority of the full set numbering 535 plus a president than it is to placate and buy off 160+ million people it takes to comprise a majority.

 

Not only that but the corrupt republican tax cut politicians figured it out too; it is a lot cheaper to buy off the 4 million or so top income folks with a massive 1.9 billion tax cut that of which 90 percent - an average of over $300,000 a 'qualified' household - goes to that 4 million.

 

You, not being one of the four-million intended beneficiaries, I can't help but wonder what it is that butters your toast.

 

pubby

 

PS: Private enterprise is already a component of our welfare spending; why do you think we pay double per-capita for our health care?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is where any real analysis of budgets and priorities shows that meme from the 1980s, based in large part on the welfare queen dog whistle, has kept the US far from attaining the contribution levels of other OECD nations. Indeed, all the top ten nations contribute greater than 25 percent of their GDP to social welfare spending while the US currently ranks at #21 with a 19.1 percent of GDP going to social welfare programs. Of course the US relies heavily on private expenditures (churches and other welfare organizations) which dilutes is buying power and efficiency meaning politicians haven't been out buying votes.

 

Hell, Donald, with his pie-in-the-sky promises to protect social security, medicare and medicaid - not to mention the 10 percent tax cut to take place before the elections in 13 days - are bull cheese.

 

Speaking, however, of using politics and law to buy votes; know that the very wealthy are smart enough to figure out that it is a lot cheaper to buy a majority of the full set numbering 535 plus a president than it is to placate and buy off 160+ million people it takes to comprise a majority.

 

Not only that but the corrupt republican tax cut politicians figured it out too; it is a lot cheaper to buy off the 4 million or so top income folks with a massive 1.9 billion tax cut that of which 90 percent - an average of over $300,000 a 'qualified' household - goes to that 4 million.

 

You, not being one of the four-million intended beneficiaries, I can't help but wonder what it is that butters your toast.

 

pubby

 

PS: Private enterprise is already a component of our welfare spending; why do you think we pay double per-capita for our health care?

Well, you have no idea of which income bracket I fit into, and I'm not going to yell you either.

 

But you're very wrong about the tax cuts. The only partial truth in your post is that people who pay more taxes usually got a larger tax cut. But in any world other than the sick rhealm of Socialism; thatxs called being fair. I'll address your other crappola later, taking the wife to dinner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...