Just had a nice Happy Hour chat with some buddies, and Austin's new homeless empowerment laws were quite the topic.
During the first happy hour of our Happy Hour, my friends and I have come up with the perfect solution.
And then in the second happy hour, we punched all sorts of holes into the plan.
I bring the concept to OB, to hear your f'ed up thoughts as well.
THE BASICS
1. State finds a suitable good sized town somewhere in semi rural Texas, whose past boomtime population is on the sharp decline. That has lots of existing, abandoned or cheap structures to be purchased under eminent domain (1.25 of fair market). Current remaining population is bought out and relocated to city/town of choice. Like they did when they built lakes in 30's, but smarter and more compassionate this time. Initiate a year long construction project, to "reset" the town for basic needs. If more housing needed, set up Quonset hut type structures. Or from unused shipping containers, etc.
2. Relocation of the homeless to the new Homelessville is optional, and large Tx cities have daily shuttle to move there, and claim your free housing. And free soup kitchens, health and mental care, and job skills training. This will effectively "sift" the homeless populations from the "accidental and want out of it homeless", from the "willing homeless".
3. Location has to be one a rail line, for supply.
4. Surround the town with the following types of staffed "development" megaplexes:
- hospital, for basic indigent health needs
- mental counseling and drugs to help
- schools for only the kids up to 16
- firefighting equipment
- job skills training in professions needing skilled labor
- no police or nor guards or fences, they police themselves. Drugs are legal. No fences or gates, all are free to leave, if they want to leave all free shelter and free benefits behind.
- engineering interns from univerisites to keep water, sewer, and bare minimum electrical grid functioning. Sort of like a peace corps opportunities for Texas students
- available small plot farmland
- concert stage for all the sympathetic artists and private charity groups, corporate handouts, to come and hold their benefits festivals.
How it could work?
1.Ten biggest Texas cities pool their current homeless program /urban housing budgets into one fund, supplemented by a state fund as well. City officials basically tell all homeless who chose not to relocate that there are now ZERO public fund resources for them in these cities, and only can count on private charities moving forward.
2. Relocation there is optional and voluntary. Relocation out to another city is also voluntary. And assisted if you have a job offer. But checking in / checking out is required, to keep up with records and stats for studies.
3. Lots of opportunities for graduate studies work
4. Revives a previously dying on the vine backwater.
But where?
My first thought was that Bryan would be perfect!
.
Maybe a town like the size of a George West, Sonora, or Mineral Wells, etc.?
5. Willing homeless in big cities who don't want a free shelter, find themselves cut off and more isolated. And less able to mooch benefits from accidental homeless who want to improve their lots.
Why It Would Never Work
1. Too many city government officials would "miss" their homeless populations, and all their paternalistic benefits programs and projects, that make them feel good about themselves, and/or further their political clout and careers.
2. The New England and California media crews would jump all over the imagery to be had, and spin their stories and "roast" Texas alive for attempting it. "Escape from New York" and "New Amsterdam" headlines would be plentiful. Just way too much of a bad PR opportunity for the media to feast upon.
3. Crime rates and death rates in Homelessville would quickly grow out of control. And epidemics would be born constantly in the city limits. Concentration of some many poor living conditions would result in lots of hard to control diseases.
4. Free shelters and food supplies would quickly be overrun by illegal aliens "seeking political asylum"
5. After the first year or two, after the novelty and "coolness" wore off, you couldn't find enough willing young and apprentice doctors, health professionals, engineers and teachers to staff the "developmental megaplexes".
6. Not enough homeless are "accidental homeless" and not near enough would willingly vokunteer, even with all the free services all available in one consolidated location.
So what do you think?
How feasible / infeasible would it be to set up?
To maintain?
What points did we miss, on either side of the debate?
And maybe the most fun question....where should we put it? I dare you to come up with a better suggestion than Bryan.
During the first happy hour of our Happy Hour, my friends and I have come up with the perfect solution.
And then in the second happy hour, we punched all sorts of holes into the plan.
I bring the concept to OB, to hear your f'ed up thoughts as well.
THE BASICS
1. State finds a suitable good sized town somewhere in semi rural Texas, whose past boomtime population is on the sharp decline. That has lots of existing, abandoned or cheap structures to be purchased under eminent domain (1.25 of fair market). Current remaining population is bought out and relocated to city/town of choice. Like they did when they built lakes in 30's, but smarter and more compassionate this time. Initiate a year long construction project, to "reset" the town for basic needs. If more housing needed, set up Quonset hut type structures. Or from unused shipping containers, etc.
2. Relocation of the homeless to the new Homelessville is optional, and large Tx cities have daily shuttle to move there, and claim your free housing. And free soup kitchens, health and mental care, and job skills training. This will effectively "sift" the homeless populations from the "accidental and want out of it homeless", from the "willing homeless".
3. Location has to be one a rail line, for supply.
4. Surround the town with the following types of staffed "development" megaplexes:
- hospital, for basic indigent health needs
- mental counseling and drugs to help
- schools for only the kids up to 16
- firefighting equipment
- job skills training in professions needing skilled labor
- no police or nor guards or fences, they police themselves. Drugs are legal. No fences or gates, all are free to leave, if they want to leave all free shelter and free benefits behind.
- engineering interns from univerisites to keep water, sewer, and bare minimum electrical grid functioning. Sort of like a peace corps opportunities for Texas students
- available small plot farmland
- concert stage for all the sympathetic artists and private charity groups, corporate handouts, to come and hold their benefits festivals.
How it could work?
1.Ten biggest Texas cities pool their current homeless program /urban housing budgets into one fund, supplemented by a state fund as well. City officials basically tell all homeless who chose not to relocate that there are now ZERO public fund resources for them in these cities, and only can count on private charities moving forward.
2. Relocation there is optional and voluntary. Relocation out to another city is also voluntary. And assisted if you have a job offer. But checking in / checking out is required, to keep up with records and stats for studies.
3. Lots of opportunities for graduate studies work
4. Revives a previously dying on the vine backwater.
But where?
My first thought was that Bryan would be perfect!
.Maybe a town like the size of a George West, Sonora, or Mineral Wells, etc.?
5. Willing homeless in big cities who don't want a free shelter, find themselves cut off and more isolated. And less able to mooch benefits from accidental homeless who want to improve their lots.
Why It Would Never Work
1. Too many city government officials would "miss" their homeless populations, and all their paternalistic benefits programs and projects, that make them feel good about themselves, and/or further their political clout and careers.
2. The New England and California media crews would jump all over the imagery to be had, and spin their stories and "roast" Texas alive for attempting it. "Escape from New York" and "New Amsterdam" headlines would be plentiful. Just way too much of a bad PR opportunity for the media to feast upon.
3. Crime rates and death rates in Homelessville would quickly grow out of control. And epidemics would be born constantly in the city limits. Concentration of some many poor living conditions would result in lots of hard to control diseases.
4. Free shelters and food supplies would quickly be overrun by illegal aliens "seeking political asylum"
5. After the first year or two, after the novelty and "coolness" wore off, you couldn't find enough willing young and apprentice doctors, health professionals, engineers and teachers to staff the "developmental megaplexes".
6. Not enough homeless are "accidental homeless" and not near enough would willingly vokunteer, even with all the free services all available in one consolidated location.
So what do you think?
How feasible / infeasible would it be to set up?
To maintain?
What points did we miss, on either side of the debate?
And maybe the most fun question....where should we put it? I dare you to come up with a better suggestion than Bryan.
Last edited:
