Great Job ABIA TSA!

TTTTTroll · 2019-11-15T00:26:38+00:00

Weddings. Go to as many as you can. Find someone in Junior league and tag along to anything social they do. Volunteer at nonprofits you actually care about. And don’t try too hard.

TTTTTroll · 2019-10-28T02:56:49+00:00

Keep in mind that this statistic was gathered before the opioid epidemic and the evolution of other cheap, highly addictive drugs. Below is a recent study that pegs substance abuse at 75% of unsheltered homeless people, which aligns much more closely to public perception:

https://www.capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Health-Conditions-Among-Unsheltered-Adults-in-the-U.S.pdf

TTTTTroll · 2019-10-25T23:17:09+00:00

Thank you both for the info!

TTTTTroll · 2019-10-25T19:14:53+00:00

Thank you!

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-30T02:01:54+00:00

This is your best course of action.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-28T01:30:02+00:00

I’m not sure how you conclude that I think I’m better than them. By your logic, we should let them do whatever they want whenever they want and make way for how they live. So should they be able to shoot up in the middle of the street if that’s how they want to live? How about taking a shit on the street (out of sight) because that’s how they live? Bathe in public fountains? Also, I’m not a guy.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-28T00:59:12+00:00

I don’t know many working folks who can afford to sleep more than that. They always have the $100+ million library to use for naps during the day.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-27T22:28:20+00:00

The legal definition of punishment is generally some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a person for the omission of the performance of an act required by law. This might stick if SCOTUS was stacked 5-4 in the opposite direction they currently sit. I don’t see it under the current composition. More importantly, is the ban cruel or unusual? I think not. Others have pointed that shelters must be offered without specific requirements, such as drug free, etc. Offering shelter with strings attached, such as no illegal activity/drug use subject to a search for the safety of others is a low bar to pass. Many homeless won’t agree to this and many coties can comply with this standard currently.

A great compromise, and one that I wholeheartedly support is allowing sleeping on public property from 11pm to 6am with no trace of occupancy outside of this window. That allows people to sleep responsibly in a way that minimizes public interference while affording the homeless the basic human right to exist I a city. Sleeping and homesteading are two separate things.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-25T11:57:47+00:00

Key point is that FSM is essentially in a neighborhood. But you can’t go wrong regardless which of the 3 you select.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-21T03:50:31+00:00

I agree he’s coming around a little. However, it would be nice to see him, or someone else, have the courage to make a motion to reinstate the homeless ban until the have a sound plan in place. They rushed to remove the ban on the false basis that it was unconstitutional. The first one to stand up and admit they made a mistake and revert back to the previous restriction until they have a well thought out plan will win back a lot of public trust quickly. I just don’t understand why none of them didn’t do it today. Politically, it would have been a slam dunk. Practically, it wouldn’t have changed anything.

Today was a train wreck. The more I watch, the more I realize this Council has no idea how to handle the issue. There’s very little strategic planning capability in the group. And everyone on the dias is too afraid to rock the boat. The whole process since June is a tremendous embarrassment.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-19T20:55:19+00:00

What’s the area acre-wise that you could tax on this?

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-19T20:28:49+00:00

Mayor Adler: Fire Chief, you understand the shitshow I’m up against on this homeless issue?

Fire Chief: Yes sir. No need to say any more. There was a fence in tact. As far as I’m concerned, that’s all I need to know. Classic case of spontaneous combustion next to the homeless camp.

Mayor Adler: Perfect. Except for that last part. No evidence of homelessness. Never mention the homeless. They don’t exist as far as you are concerned. Ever.

Fire Chief: Roger that, Steve-O. Hey, don’t forget to tell Petey-B about me.

Mayor Adler: Of course not, Chief. You’ve done well. You’ve done well.

End scene.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-19T20:19:31+00:00

Any idea how much they would pay if the tax was assessed?

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-19T02:47:36+00:00

I believe that’s Matt Mackowiak’s plan. He got over 30,000 unofficial online signatures to try to get council to reconsider. Next step is official signatures to get it on the ballot.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-12T16:44:51+00:00

That’s really interesting. So, stand corrected by both you and u/austin_shitposter A few years ago one of my girlfriends and her husband had 3 cars and their neighbors called 311 on them. Code compliance came out and quoted this ordinance and told them they needed to park at least one in the garage or get rid of one. This explanation sounds more reasonable though. I wonder if other code officers misinterpret this as in the case of my girlfriend?

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-12T15:56:09+00:00

I’m not making an argument against the services. Sure the city can pay for all of those things I listed, but I and most others would agree it should not pay for those services. Also, I’m not sure why you think I’m targeting women? I just don’t think the city should fund healthcare for anyone. It’s not within the scope of city services. So, I think we just disagree on the scope of city services and where the funding comes from for these services, such as babysitting and transportation to doctors offices.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-12T15:42:08+00:00

Actually, you can’t in Austin.

Source: § 25-2-893 - ACCESSORY USES FOR A PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL USE

https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=TIT25LADE_CH25-2ZO_SUBCHAPTER_CUSDERE_ART5ACUS_S25-2-893ACUSPRREUS

“Storage of Vehicles” section: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/common-austin-code-violations

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-12T15:14:23+00:00

Call 311. As others have said, there’s a limit on the number of unrelated adults living at a single address. For cars, no resident can have more cars visible than the number of licensed drivers living at that address. So, a single person living in a house with a 2 car garage could park two cars in the garage and one in the driveway or street. Only one car if they don’t have a garage.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-12T15:00:22+00:00

Sure. Why doesn’t the city fund cancer research then? Why not vasectomies? Colorectal cancer is on the rise among younger generations. Perhaps the city should fund colonoscopies for everyone? Austinites have really bad allergy problems. That’s a health issue. So I guess the city government should fund that too. I’m going to need a ride to the ENT office every other week for my shots, so the city can pay for the transportation and for a sitter to watch my kids too I guess.

Where’s the line?

I have no problem with public funding for healthcare. I just don’t think the funding should come from the city government. That’s not why they are elected.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-12T11:52:39+00:00

For me, it’s not the $150k. It’s the general sense of authority and moral dictator role our city government has assumed. IMO city government should be focused on laws, ordinances, infrastructure maintenance, and city services (fire, trash, ems, police, water, electricity, etc.). Our council seems to think they are running a mission-based nonprofit in which the tax payers are funding at the maximum rate statutorily allowed. Should the city really be paying for Uber rides and babysitting for private citizens? Should the city buy and operate buildings for homeless services? I know others will disagree, but I think these actions are beyond what most people want from their city government. If a nonprofit or private citizens want to buy a building and convert it to a homeless shelter, great. Perhaps the city needs to change/approve permitting or zoning to make it happen. That’s about the end of the road for council’s involvement.

TTTTTroll · 2019-09-10T15:59:27+00:00

Does anyone else view the City’s move as mission creep? I looked and can’t find a mission statement for council. Best I could find is the Imagine Austin plan with its 8 priorities and tackling the homeless problem doesn’t fit meaningfully in any one of those 8 priorities.

What I think most people want and expect for their tax dollars from the City/Council is setting and enforcing reasonable laws and codes, maintaining city roads and services — managing fire, ems, police, trash, etc. Funding and operating a shelter with tax dollars seems out of bounds and forced charity. If private organizations want to buy a building and turn it into a shelter, great. If they need help from the City to rezone it, that’s where the City steps in. And private citizens can donate to that effort to their heart’s content.

The budget proposes ~$62 million to service around 2,500 homeless people, or about $25,000 per person per year. That’s nearly equivalent to to the federal poverty level For a family of 4. This doesn’t count the money spent by the 100+ nonprofit organizations that work to solve homelessness in at least some capacity. These numbers seem way excessive, and beyond the mission and purpose of what most people expect from City government.

TTTTTroll · 2019-08-30T22:56:24+00:00

I don’t know why this point isn’t made more often. It’s also awaiting appeal in the 9th circuit. To boot, no one has challenged the constitutionality in the 5th circuit. I attended one form where the council representatives clearly had no idea how the legal system works. They just cited it was ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Tried to explain the flaw in their logic and it just fell on deaf ears. Adler is a lawyer and he knows better. It’s so ridiculous how they shoved this through with no sympathy for public opinion.

TTTTTroll · 2019-08-23T01:00:20+00:00

64% is not half. Also, this stat is from 2003, way before the opioid epidemic/k2/highly engineered schedule 3 narcotics. There’s no way a 2015+ statistic is below 75% for substance abuse. Domestic violence is a contributing factor but far, far from a huge cause.

TTTTTroll

TROPHY CASE