Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

smartest_kobold t1_j2ze6sz wrote

Seems like an unsafe situation. We should really get the people living in that tent city into housing.

0

Boats_are_fun t1_j2zet3t wrote

Shelter has been there for years. Why all of a sudden are tents allowed on the sidewalk

11

vexingsilence t1_j2zg4kz wrote

The courts have gotten in the way of towns enforcing anti-panhandling and vagrancy type of offenses. The best thing we could do now is to convince the homeless to pitch their tents in front of the homes of judges.

4

Maldonian t1_j32p8n0 wrote

Manchester police chief made some comments about this. They can't legally remove them from the sidewalk anymore. I'm sure if you or I parked our car on the curb, we'd still get a ticket, though.

3

smartest_kobold t1_j2ziae2 wrote

The homeless have to sleep somewhere.

2

vexingsilence t1_j2znzmo wrote

That's fine, but camping out on sidewalks isn't it. It makes no sense that people can be fined for leaving a trash bin on the curb too long but yet others can live there on the curb with no consequences.

People shouldn't have to worry about being mugged or stabbed by vagrants if they venture outside on foot.

9

smartest_kobold t1_j30he5t wrote

Ok, city planner junior, where do you put the tent city of homeless?

−4

Boats_are_fun t1_j2zk41u wrote

I get it and I agree. I guess I was wondering what has changed. They also have that large fenced in area next to the shelter. Can’t they set up more permanent tents for them on the shelter property?

2

kathryn13 t1_j31zh9e wrote

The shelter is full each night. They also have limited staff at the moment. City officials have asked the nonprofit running the shelter to allow tents inside their courtyard. The nonprofit doesn't have the staff to supervise a tent city on their property, nor do they have the bathroom facilities to deal with that many folks or want the liability of having this rough population on their grounds. The nonprofit is at max capability and have drawn a line.

City officials have created ordinances to make sure there's no more camping in the city parks. The homeless moved from parks to the sidewalk because as long as they're not blocking walkers, they can legally be on the sidewalk.

All our leaders need to come together to find better solutions. This is a statewide issue and with Manchester being the largest city, the homeless have been convening here from around the state. Notice that the folks being written about in the papers aren't from Manchester, they're from around the state.

Manchester has nearly 1700 housing units approved and in progress with around 200 of those reserved exclusively for extremely low income residents. What we need is transitional and supportive services housing. We do have some possibilities, but no leaders are pushing this forward at the moment and that's a shame. Our city and nonprofit leaders seem to be overwhelmed into non-action.

2

Maldonian t1_j32fj1t wrote

It’s one thing to have housing that’s “reserved for extremely low income residents,” but how will the residents pay for their housing?

Unless you’re proposing that you and I should cover the cost, or government should force the property owner to rent it out at a loss?

In any event, should there be a time limit on “transitional housing?” If so, what would the time limit be?

2

kathryn13 t1_j32gx97 wrote

Learn more at the Manchester Housing and Redevelopment Authority page.

The NH Housing page.

The Southern NH Services page.

Lincoln Avenue Capital - who are building the majority of the low income housing units in the city.

1

Maldonian t1_j32oy7k wrote

Thank you for the links.

The first one has it right on their front page that you and I are paying for their services through our federal taxes. Congratulations for their honesty.

The second and third, if you click around, you'll eventually stumble upon mentions of federal funding too. Not as good as being on the main page, but at least the information is there.

The fourth one, though, wow. Beautiful website that answers almost zero questions. (And no link to actually see any of their available units.) If they've managed to make housing cost less by reducing their costs (like the way Walmart and Costco do business), they should say so. If they're doing it through taxpayer subsidies, they should say so. But they say neither.

Looking through their impact report, they do mention getting money from the Amazon Housing Equity Fund. It's noble that Amazon is donating their own money to a cause they like, but sadly, they're doing it in a racially discriminatory fashion, according to their own web page.

1

Maldonian t1_j32f3j8 wrote

A: They should get themselves into housing. You’re also welcome to open up some space for them at your house if you want.

B: It wouldn’t be such an unsafe situation if we’d keep violent criminals locked up. Everyone, homeless or otherwise, deserves to be able to walk down the street without getting stabbed.

5

smartest_kobold t1_j32hbj9 wrote

>They should get themselves into housing.

That's the plan now. How's it working?

>It wouldn’t be such an unsafe situation if we’d keep violent criminals locked up.

The US locks more criminals up longer than almost anybody and our rates of violent crime are terrible.

1

Maldonian t1_j32ii0h wrote

It’s not working out very well, but I’m still not going to bribe someone with a free house in hopes they’ll get off the sidewalk. I stay off the sidewalk all night, and no one gives me a free house.

The fact that many other people are locked up, has nothing to do with the fact that this terrible person wasn’t locked up, and because of that, was able to try to kill two people.

Prison is an opt-in system. We can just build as many as the criminals want us to build. Or they could cut down on crime and then we could knock some of them down. Up to them.

1

smartest_kobold t1_j32p23a wrote

I don't see what you're complaining about. The outcome bothers you, but not enough to change the approach.

EDIT: I will gladly "bribe" people if it means they can live indoors and reduce their risk of being stabbed.

1

Maldonian t1_j32w2sq wrote

If the stabber had been kept caged previously, people wouldn’t have been stabbed.

Yes, the outcome disappoints me, but lots of things disappoint me. That doesn’t mean I’m going to pay people to change their behavior. Sure, I’m disappointed when people spend their money on drugs instead of housing. They should stop doing that.

2