0 h 24 m, 24 jul 2010 año - (Bus Town Chronicals) Homeless: ticket to ride? By Emily Anderson Saturday, July 24, 2010 Grand Junction Daily Sentinal .

Descripción:

Purchasing bus tickets for them out of town and building designated places for the homeless to live were two possibilities the Grand Junction City Council discussed Saturday as ways to handle chronic homelessness in the city.

The city already buys bus tickets on a case-by-case basis for some homeless individuals, often if they’re new to municipal court and want to leave Grand Junction, City Attorney John Shaver told the council during its retreat Saturday at Grand Junction Regional Airport. Shaver said some chronically homeless people are offered a bus ticket as a condition of their sentence in lieu of a stay in the crowded Mesa County Jail.

“We had a man who wanted to leave but couldn’t get on a bus because of his dog and his bike,” Shaver said. “We figured out a way to ship him and his dog and his bicycle to where he wants to be.”

Shaver commented on the topic after City Council member Tom Kenyon, who is on the council’s homelessness subcommittee, said he had heard the city offers this service on a limited basis. “Maybe we need to increase the budget for that,” he said.

Council member Gregg Palmer said he also supports ticket purchases. “I think if some want to go home, we should provide that,” he said.

Mayor Teresa Coons said some research into the matter likely will show other cities are doing the same thing and buying bus tickets to Grand
Junction. “We’d just be doing to other communities what they do to us,” she said.
If the city doesn’t buy tickets for transients, City Council member Sam Susuras said, Grand Junction “will have them all.”

Kenyon said suggestions he has heard for housing those who want to stay include a tent city to a 120-unit apartment building, which he said the city cannot afford. “There needs to be a place for people to be. This camping on city property is baloney,” Kenyon said.

Palmer suggested having a designated area for chronically homeless. “Not everyone’s going to want to leave. We’re going to have to direct them to a place with at least some amenities,” he said.

Just as the Meth Task Force invested money in working to eradicate meth issues, City Council member Bruce Hill said, it likely will take some “hard cash” to work on this issue. Hill said it’s not about who has a fancy house or no house. It’s about bad behavior. “It’s having a place (for chronically homeless to be), and if they break the law, we won’t tolerate it anymore,” Hill said. “We need to take our parks back. I don’t want to use that park, but if we use it, they won’t want to use it.”

Susuras said he has heard from constituents who won’t go to parks downtown or the Mesa County Public Library because of homeless people. Police Chief John Camper, who also was at the meeting, said the city has “essentially handed over two parks to transients.” Susuras said if an area with amenities is designated for chronically homeless people, they should have to do community service to live there, but he wasn’t sure the idea would work. “Can we confine these people to a site such as Gregg has suggested?” Susuras asked Shaver. As long as there’s a designated place other than parks or other public areas for certain people to be, the answer is yes, said Shaver.

If they refuse to go,
that’s when we arrest them,”
Shaver said.
====================================
While I understand their concerns, we have very few parks that don't have small tent cities in the area. I just have to wonder how they justify this sort of "open incarceration" of *certain people*. I mean, basically, whether there are wires around it or not, they are being put in a camp of sorts, and that bothers me.

Smokie Darling (Annie)
====================================
Wouldn't it beat getting run out or arrested all the time?

Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
====================================
<Barnabus1...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
They call that Greyhound Therapy.

Santa Monica, Ca began to notice an increase in their homeless population. Found out several cities in Florida were giving free bus tickets and food (lol) money to their undesirables. I think I remember a court injunction.

We could hire the unemployed to ferry the homeless back and forth across the country, the freeways busy with interstate commerce. Give new meaning to the word transient. A totally renewable resource.

We could create an entire export industry!
====================================
earthage Wrote:
Many years ago when I was in Rio Brazil, I remember going to a park where one had to pay a small fee, very small like fifty cents. Once in, walking around I realized how quiet and peaceful it was, quickly realized there were no people begging for money. This seemed to be be one of the few places to get away from the poverty. I figured the small fee kept the beggars out.

An article was posted here years ago where NYC had a program to send the homeless to other places, in fact they even gave people airfare to other countries. I can understand how people end up in NYC, but how do they end up in Grand Junction? I know article says some other cities send people to GJ, but why would they opt for GJ?
====================================
Smokie Darling (Annie)

My issue was not the buying tickets to send them away, I know other cities do the same thing. I'm not really concerned about giving them their own places to legally camp/live. It's the forcing them to live there or be arrested.

I'm only concerned that if we allow them to put "certain people" in this specific area ("camp") how long before other "undesirables" (and who will decide what that is?) are placed in "camps for their kind"?
====================================
I'd go for one for pedophiles. :)

Chocolic
====================================
You know, I remember watching a pretty bad film, called The Island I think... Years ago. Lance Henriksen, and I think Ray Liotta... Criminals were put on an island, food was air dropped in, no guards, no rules, no way to get away even if you *could* build a raft of sorts. I used to think that that would be a good place for certain criminals.

Granted the whole point of it was that Liotta's character (I think) hadn't broken any laws, iirc. My issues with the death penalty always come down to that. *What if* that person didn't do what they are accused/convicted of doing (it isn't like we haven't seen enough exonerations -sp?- years later)?
====================================
realpch

Well the issue isn't what kind of people they are, it's their housing status. Looks like this would be a gain for them. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
====================================
"Smokie Darling (Annie)" wrote:
Yes, that's what it sounds like, right now. I'm sure the Japanese American Interrment Camps ere "for their own protection/safety" too. Yes, I'm a worry-wort. I know most of the Mesa County Commissioners, and I wouldn't trust any of them with my dog, much less the welfare of a human being (regardless of how detestable some may find these men and women).

If handled correctly, this could be a boon. However, living in the area, there are not alot of "shaded" places (like the parks) where the homeless aren't in desert heat/sun all day. They don't want them in "parks and public places", and that's where all the trees and grass are.
What's left is BLM land (with *nothing* there but dirt and scrub). It's been hitting 100° pretty regularly and I've got trees! It's all going to depend on *where* they decide to set this place up (if they even go with this idea).
====================================
Twittering One Wrote:

whocares
====================================
"Smokie Darling (Annie)" wrote:
Aren't you the one who posts about the Homeless all the time? Such compassion...
====================================
Nancy Rudins wrote:

Parks are municipal property open to the public for recreational use. I understand why the city council wants to prevent people from camping in the parks, especially when the campers are preventing others from using the parks for their purpose.

Providing a place where homeless people can camp out is a partial solution BUT the option shouldn't be to stay there or get arrested. It seems people should only get arrested if they are breaking the law. Are there vagrancy laws in
Grand Junction City? Do the parks have signs posted saying that they are closed after a certain time?

Nancy
--
E = F-flat
Musician's Theory of Relativity
nru...@att.net
====================================
Twittering One wrote:
Lower-extremity medical disabilities are my NEW cause.
====================================
"Smokie Darling (Annie)" wrote:
The two "parks" that are "tent cities" currently (the ones they mention being "handed over"), aren't used for much (and never were). They were just green patches with trees, but no tables, no childrens play equipment. One was Sherwood, the other was Whitman (now called
Wino) Park. Whitman is in between two very busy streets (Ute and Pitkin) at least I think it's Whitman, nowhere to park a vehicle if you take your kids there.

Not those two parks, but all the others. What's funny... Out in Palisade, they have two absolutely beautiful parks, fully shaded. Places to sit and watch your kids play. They have a large group of people who may or may not be homeless there every day. They are gone at night though.

I believe there are vagrancy laws, but some of the homeless work enough to get around that (can't remember the dollar amount they had
to make each week to be considered a non-vagrant). The problem here... We don't have any very low-income housing, for those who
really cannot seem to get a "regular" job. There also aren't a lot of day jobs that could be done (unless you want to stand outside the temp agencies at 6:00 am so they can come out and say, we have 4 jobs for today!).
====================================
earthage wrote:
An article on "camping" in Boulder CO. Says there are about 650 homeless in Boulder. I think the estimate for the homeless in Silicon Valley (Santa Clara County) is under 10,000. Although I've only seen them in downtown San Jose, and not that many, the estimates for the homeless always sound low to me. Haven't heard of any tent cities in the area, but there used to be one in the East Bay. And last year there was a growing one in Sacramento. On any cold or hot day, how can one not think of the homeless. There but for the grace of God go I.

http://www.aclu-co.org/news/pressrelease/release_boulder_camping_06_28_10.html

In the past four years, Boulder police have issued over 1600 tickets for violations of the city’s anti-camping ordinance. The law prohibits
sleeping outside with “shelter,” which Boulder defines to include any protection from the elements other than clothing. Thus, sleeping outside at night is not “camping,” but sleeping while using a blanket or sleeping bag is a crime.
====================================
realpch wrote
Ohhhh, they don't want them around in the daytime. I was thinking it was
about where people slept at night.

Peach
====================================
Smokie Darling (Annie) wrote:

I think that this number could be correct. It gets flippin' cold in Boulder. Even summers are not particularly *hot*. Grd Jct is a different kettle of fish. Our winters are *generally* mild, and with
proper prep, someone could live outside 24/7 and be alright. Yes, we've had some hideous ones lately, but in general... snow fall is gone within the day.

They don't want them in public parks, period. Day or night. That's part of the problem with this proposal. I admit I did not mention that earlier.
====================================
realpch wrote:
My town had a park that the homeless liked. Had a little pool, so there
was water. They took that pool out! I don't see them there anymore. Bit
by bit, all the areas where one could covertly camp are being developed.
I don't know where they're going.

Peach
====================================
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fbclid=IwAR3Ctes6e_7c055zx6qqWYpH-mSbh1MmZ2sRIzn2Fsx_3oZKnFakz9Xob0A#!msg/alt.true-crime/9b042JRY8sM/rOylgF57YmgJ
.

Añadido al timeline:

fecha: