New program launching in Indianapolis to provide safe place for people living in cars

[firecadet613]

The right to exist is determined by God, not local landowners.

Agreed, but the public doesn't need to provide a space for one to exist.

These people are not “taking resources from others”, they are being allowed to utilize an idle public resource…by the legitimate public authority …to keep vulnerable people from having to sleep in places where they are neither welcome nor safe. This is an expression of compassion, not communism.

Why would one person get to use those public spaces in that capacity while others aren't able to?

My grandfather drove a forklift at a warehouse for 45 years. That job bought him a house at age 22, allowed him to keep a stay-at-home wife who raised three kids, send those kids to college, and retire with a pension.

That type of opportunity was gone by the time I was old enough to work

I have a college degree, I started working in my field immediately after graduation. My wife works a full-time job, I wasn’t able to buy a house until I was 40, and I’ll never retire.

Choices have consequences. I'll wager your older than I am (I'm not 40 yet). I didn't buy my first house until I was 19, have had two houses since then and no longer have a mortgage.

The thought that you need a college degree to get ahead and have to wait years to buy a home isn't accurate.

Kids getting into my line of work now are carrying $100k in college debt for the same starting wage I made 25 years ago.

Again - choices. Plenty of $60,000+ jobs out there that do not require a degree.

So what's the answer? This country (blame whomever you want) has pushed hundreds of thousands into homelessness over the past four years and the answer is to continue to punish them? Continue to push them anywhere but here? At what point do you think that's going to begin to cause bigger problems?

There's a bigger picture/problem to be addressed, kicking the first to go down isn't going to help or fix anything.

Elections have consequences.

One cannot simply just exist, a human being is not a rock. They need space to exist in, they need food to sustain, they need a place to use the bathroom. There are very few habitable places in this country where there are unowned spaces that one can exist in. Therefore the whole concept of a right to just exist without work or space doesn’t exist simply because humans must have resources to exist. Those encampments are not existing, they are taking resources from others…

Agreed. So give someone free space... how do they eat? Bathe? Exist?

Space which must be obtained from someone else? Without space, they have no right to exist is what you're saying. Maybe we should start mandatory abortions for any child without a guaranteed piece of real estate waiting on them when they arrive. That'd solve the problem.

Who is saying this? This country was founded on life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one is advocating for someone to take that away.

So one must labor for someone else to exist in this country. You like to poke me for not answering questions so how about addressing mine?

Nope, wrong again. Start your own business. Onlyfans. Sugar daddy (or momma). No one is forcing anyone to get a conventional job these days.

What are you going to do with the people who don't want to work for this system? You operate under a set of assumptions because that is the framework you've been raised in and apparently cannot see out of. Since leaving people alone who aren't on your property isn't an option, what are you going to do with the people who won't do things your way? Debtor's prison? If they're committing no crime and not on private property what harm are they doing to people who have every comfort imaginable?

That's the system. I have yet to see a valid alternative be brought forward and there likely won't be.

I'm not saying anyone has any responsibility whatsoever to help anyone else, that's an individual decision. I take issue with people holding their nose in the air, passing judgement on people less fortunate and demanding they be moved out of their sight. You can justify it anyway you want to but it doesn't make it less pathetic.

Who on INGO is advocating that? I donate more than my fair share but one only needs to look at the failed policies of California, Seattle, and other jurisdictions to see what your advocating for won't work (and has failed elsewhere).

 

[Gingerbeardman]

In Indianapolis, the public (or seemingly public) areas I see being used by the homeless are areas no normal person would visit.

Some people don't choose the "permanent camper" lifestyle, they just suffer a dramatic economic event and can't recover.

The moral strength of a country can be measured by how it lifts its less fortunate. I would submit the idea there are well-minded and poor-minded homeless. Some trash the area they inhabit, and some are doing the absolute best they can with what life has currently dealt them. How we choose to fix the situation reflects to the world the true nature of a person benefiting from living in the greatest nation ever conceived.

Have a good Sunday.

 

[phylodog]

Agreed, but the public doesn't need to provide a space for one to exist.

The public didn't create space. Space does not belong to the public.

Why would one person get to use those public spaces in that capacity while others aren't able to?

Why would someone want to keep people off of property they do not own? The public includes everyone.

Choices have consequences. I'll wager your older than I am (I'm not 40 yet). I didn't buy my first house until I was 19, have had two houses since then and no longer have a mortgage.

Good for you. My advice would be to spend more time appreciating how good you have and have had it thuse far, perhaps a little more time thanking God for it and less time trying to shuffle people like cattle.

So give someone free space... how do they eat? Bathe? Exist?

That is their concern, is it not?

Who is saying this? This country was founded on life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one is advocating for someone to take that away.

"No one" most certainly is. Some believe in that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing just as far as it extends to their pursuit of happiness. For some, owning nothing is a pursuit of happiness and if this country were run the way it was intended they would be able to do that. Instead, we have materialism and greed demanding that everyone labor for someone else to exist.

Nope, wrong again. Start your own business. Onlyfans. Sugar daddy (or momma). No one is forcing anyone to get a conventional job these days.

Locked into the matrix.

Who on INGO is advocating that?

Anyone with the "not on my public property" perspective.

I donate more than my fair share but one only needs to look at the failed policies of California, Seattle, and other jurisdictions to see what your advocating for won't work (and has failed elsewhere).

You have no concept of what I'm advocating for.

Many need to listen to this and hear it. Wisdom beyond measure from one of "those" people who most would step over or demand they be shuffled along.

 

[firecadet613]

The public didn't create space. Space does not belong to the public.

Well, in this country there is private property and "public" property. Surely you're familiar with that.

Why would someone want to keep people off of property they do not own? The public includes everyone.

Who said I wanted to? I asked why someone should be allowed to stay their rent free while others aren't able to.

Good for you. My advice would be to spend more time appreciating how good you have and have had it thuse far, perhaps a little more time thanking God for it and less time trying to shuffle people like cattle.

Wrong. I was replying to the poster who said they waited until they were 40 to buy a house. I wager that is the exception - NOT the rule for most.

"No one" most certainly is. Some believe in that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing just as far as it extends to their pursuit of happiness. For some, owning nothing is a pursuit of happiness and if this country were run the way it was intended they would be able to do that. Instead, we have materialism and greed demanding that everyone labor for someone else to exist.

Where can you live for free? How is that working out in California and Seattle?

Locked into the matrix.

A wise person would figure out how to succeed in the matrix...

Anyone with the "not on my public property" perspective.

You have no concept of what I'm advocating for.

Help me understand it then. I've seen those cities out west and I cannot fathom any sane person would advocate for that in Indianapolis...

Many need to listen to this and hear it. Wisdom beyond measure from one of "those" people who most would step over or demand they be shuffled along.

Didn't watch it, but it's not just shelter that is a material thing. How does one bathe, eat, clothe themselves without material goods?

 

[phylodog]

Didn't watch it

Probably doesn't matter

 

[Ingomike]

Space which must be obtained from someone else? Without space, they have no right to exist is what you're saying.

When you were born someone gave you space to exist, eat and poop in. Is there any space in the US that isn’t owned by someone or the public?

So one must labor for someone else to exist in this country. You like to poke me for not answering questions so how about addressing mine?

One must labor, either for himself or someone else, to exist in this country or figure out a way to get others to sustain him.

What are you going to do with the people who don't want to work for this system? You operate under a set of assumptions because that is the framework you've been raised in and apparently cannot see out of. Since leaving people alone who aren't on your property isn't an option, what are you going to do with the people who won't do things your way? Debtor's prison? If they're committing no crime and not on private property what harm are they doing to people who have every comfort imaginable?

There is no such thing as property that has no rules, laws, and regulations where one can exist. Public property is not a free for all for everyone to just do what they want. There are rules, laws, and regulations in city parks, state parks, and federal lands. I doubt living is allowed in many of them. Without taking from others where is this place where would one just exist with no rules, laws, and regulations?

I'm not saying anyone has any responsibility whatsoever to help anyone else, that's an individual decision. I take issue with people holding their nose in the air, passing judgement on people less fortunate and demanding they be moved out of their sight. You can justify it anyway you want to but it doesn't make it less pathetic.

Who the heck is passing judgement? Most homeless need help; we contribute often for meals and supplies for them. But they have no right to use public resources that are not designated for them.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

One must labor, either for himself or someone else, to exist in this country or figure out a way to get others to sustain him.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

A quick google search shows it's legal to be homeless in Oregon and Wyoming.

 

[Ingomike]

I didn’t see the post until you replied to it and I agree. The same basic premise of what I was attempting to get people to see. A human born into this earth does not need another human’s permission to exist - laws be damned.

Yes it does, or the existence will be short, since humans are born pretty helpless. A human cannot exist long without food and shelter, one either works to get it, works to buy it, or get it as charity. There are no other options.

This isn’t China yet and I’d prefer it not go any further in that direction.

What does China have to do with any of this?

We've created a system in which most believe participation (get a job, pay taxes, rent property from the government and call it yours) is mandatory. I say it is not.

I suspect those that don’t want to get a job, pay taxes, rent property from the government have it better now than anytime in history.

 

[Ingomike]

The public didn't create space. Space does not belong to the public.

God created the space and left man as the stewards of it. The stewards of the land designated a park for the community to enjoy not a few people to use it to live in. Where is this space that is not private property nor belongs to the public?

Why would someone want to keep people off of property they do not own? The public includes everyone.

The public is all welcome, it is not that they cannot be there, they can do anything anyone else can but squatting is not simply being there.

Good for you. My advice would be to spend more time appreciating how good you have and have had it thuse far, perhaps a little more time thanking God for it and less time trying to shuffle people like cattle.

Getting people in where they can get help is the act of trying to shuffle people like cattle?

"No one" most certainly is. Some believe in that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing just as far as it extends to their pursuit of happiness. For some, owning nothing is a pursuit of happiness and if this country were run the way it was intended they would be able to do that. Instead, we have materialism and greed demanding that everyone labor for someone else to exist.

No one must own anything. No one is obligated to give you anything

 

[Ingomike]

A quick google search shows it's legal to be homeless in Oregon and Wyoming.

What does that mean? Can people homestead in city or state parks or on city sidewalks? If the people allow that on public property it is legal.