Judge: "Washington must find rooms for homeless families out in cold"

More unconstitutional lunacy from the judicial branch....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A judge on Monday ordered the District of Columbia to provide homeless families private rooms when temperatures drop below freezing instead of housing them in public recreation centers.

The ruling by District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Robert Okun came in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of homeless people who said the housing offered by the United States capital placed their children in danger.

Washington's financial burden is outweighed by the "psychological harm of the most vulnerable members of our society, the children of the homeless" if they are denied safe housing, the judge said.

How about removing those children from their parents so the taxpayers dont have to subsidize even more people?

100% unconstitutional and this needs to be appealed.

reply to post by doubletap

How about removing those children from their parents so the taxpayers dont have to subsidize even more people?

Yes. Lets rip families apart, but continue paying out for the children while they are sent from unstable crappy environment to the next.

What part seems unconstitutional?

On March 17, Philadelphia's city council announced a plan to use tax incentives and bonds to redevelop 1,500 vacant, city-owned properties for low-income housing.

This makes a lot more sense then renting out motel rooms.

Here's the link

I'm gonna have to agree with the OP. If you cannot support your children that should be a very good reason to remove them from you. It is in my state I know, why isn't it that way in D.C.? We shouldn't have to provide people with welfare because they cannot take care of their children. In fact I am for that across the board. Don't have kids if you expect the rest of us to pay for them.

You can have your children back after you can provide them with a home. Simple as that.

reply to post by Domo1


Oops, forgot to provide the link to the whole article...thanks for noticing.

As for whats unconstitutional....Since DC must abide by the federal Constitution, the question is where is the authorization for this expenditure? There isnt any.

I found this part to be a bit comical:

The ruling by District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Robert Okun came in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of homeless people who said the housing offered by the United States capital placed their children in danger.

SO they have time to file lawsuits and attend court, but not to find a job.

If they are so worried about their kids being in danger, it would seem lifting themselves out of homelessness would be the proper course of action, not suing the city for more taxpayer subsidized living quarters.

doubletap
If they are so worried about their kids being in danger, it would seem lifting themselves out of homelessness would be the proper course of action, not suing the city for more taxpayer subsidized living quarters.

How do you know they are not doing both at the same time? There are more people than jobs in some areas, I would not assume everyone who is jobless is a bad person or a bad parent.

reply to post by Pimpintology

Don't have kids if you expect the rest of us to pay for them.

I tend to agree but the unfortunate truth is that these things can't always be controlled and making children suffer more for the mistakes of their parents is cruel. It's also pointless considering that like it or not tax payers will be paying for them.

It shouldn't matter how the kids got here, but how we treat them now. Yes, the parents are most likely idiots. Then there are probably those that fell on hard times and are great people that need a leg up.

If we can't all agree that letting people freeze to death = bad I'm worried.

reply to post by doubletap

Where do you think the children should be moved to? Foster care? Who do you think pays for foster care? I'm curious as to what your solution would be?

reply to post by 2manyholes


Foster care is an option, and it solves 2 problems: It removes those kids from a dangerous situation (according to the parents), and it eases the burden for them to get back on their feet without having to worry about who will watch the kids.
Taxpayer funded hotel rooms for homeless people is pretty much the worst option imaginable.

reply to post by Domo1


Which section of the Constitution authorizes the use of taxpayer funds for this ridiculous ruling?

reply to post by doubletap

SO they have time to file lawsuits and attend court, but not to find a job.

If they are so worried about their kids being in danger, it would seem lifting themselves out of homelessness would be the proper course of action, not suing the city for more taxpayer subsidized living quarters.

I had to read a book when in some low level English class about a woman who went undercover and worked menial wage jobs trying to survive. She didn't do too hot.

I know a lot of people who share your feeling that people should stop being lazy and get a job. Problem is, how? We have college graduates working at McDonalds. I can't imagine how hard it would be to find work with no permanent address, no phone, limited access to computers, no way to wash clothes or get cleaned up for interviews, having to rely on public transportation etc. Not every homeless person is lazy. The majority fell on hard times, and the crappy thing about that is the whole thing just snowballs and pretty soon your entire day may be spent begging so you can afford something to eat.

I would like to see these people get a leg up. It's either that or we keep complaining about how they are a drain on society. I'd rather spend $100 now then $1,000 down the road.

And the real point here is that taking kids away from people only to be thrust into a ton of awful environments isn't helping anyone. Not the taxpayer, not the child, not the parents, no you, not me, nobody.

doubletap
More unconstitutional lunacy from the judicial branch....

Here's an idea: Grant the homeless unfettered access to government offices (including this judge's) and watch how fast a permanent solution is found.

reply to post by doubletap


Seperating children from thier parents can be very traumatic with lasting effects, so I'm not so sure about it, but do understand what you are saying.
I'm thinking that rather then doling out more money, foster care is an on going expense. It would seem more prudent and possibly less a tax burden in the long run to make the community buildings a safer enviroment. Just my thoughts.

You would think that in this day and age they would have adequate room in shelters. If not put some people to work and build more, you know the New Deal. Then again a little competence is too much to ask for.

Domo1
reply to post by doubletap

 

SO they have time to file lawsuits and attend court, but not to find a job.

If they are so worried about their kids being in danger, it would seem lifting themselves out of homelessness would be the proper course of action, not suing the city for more taxpayer subsidized living quarters.

I had to read a book when in some low level English class about a woman who went undercover and worked menial wage jobs trying to survive. She didn't do too hot.

I know a lot of people who share your feeling that people should stop being lazy and get a job. Problem is, how? We have college graduates working at McDonalds. I can't imagine how hard it would be to find work with no permanent address, no phone, limited access to computers, no way to wash clothes or get cleaned up for interviews, having to rely on public transportation etc. Not every homeless person is lazy. The majority fell on hard times, and the crappy thing about that is the whole thing just snowballs and pretty soon your entire day may be spent begging so you can afford something to eat.

I would like to see these people get a leg up. It's either that or we keep complaining about how they are a drain on society. I'd rather spend $100 now then $1,000 down the road.

And the real point here is that taking kids away from people only to be thrust into a ton of awful environments isn't helping anyone. Not the taxpayer, not the child, not the parents, no you, not me, nobody.

exactly...and these children would grow feeling abandoned and angry and most likely end up on the wrong side of the law with a major chip on their shoulders..and again likely to end up needed more government assistance when they grow up,creating more strain on the tax payer..there is nothing to gain by taking kids away from their parents unless of course the parents were abusive

reply to post by doubletap


I am not a proponent of handouts. In fact, I hate the idea even when I need them.

I am not against this. I honestly dont care if its legal or otherwise, you dont let hunger go without a plate of food, and you dont deny a warm safe place to people in the cold.

Good for them.

Hopefully it wont cost millions in throwbacks to the people giving out building contracts for these shelters.

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed


I think it's time we step up and rip off the band aid that is our current way of dealing with homelessness. It's all so half assed and seems to completely ignore any real solution. It's sticking our fingers in the dam and ignoring it even as it becomes more and more of a problem.

doubletap
reply to post by Domo1

 

Which section of the Constitution authorizes the use of taxpayer funds for this ridiculous ruling?

The Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

reply to post by doubletap


That's easy, just put everyone up in motels forever on the public tab.

Homeless Hotel Tab Nears $1M per Week with No Plan for How to Get Out

The main point isn't being addresses.

Private rooms versus public recreation centers.

Private rooms? When the temps are below freezing, I would think anybody would be more than thankful for a warm place to go.
Unless they relied on help. And had a sense of entitlement. And didn't expect these conditions to be 'temporary', but were fighting for 'private rooms' for their use next year.

I'm all for some sort of public shelters, but private rooms? With public tax dollars?
The American public should be allowed to vote on issues such as this, along with a whole lot of other issues.

How about public rec centers dedicated to 'families only'?

Those that feel 'private rooms' are a necessity for the homeless might consider setting up a charity dedicated to this cause.

reply to post by nugget1


Would you want children in that sort of place? I sure as ____ don't. Drug abuse, alcoholism, probably quite a few sexual predators and all packed in nice and cozy.

I can take care of myself and would be pretty freaked out if I had to spend a night in those conditions. Imagine a toddler.

How about public rec centers dedicated to 'families only'?

That's not a bad idea.