Austin
Sponsored by

Question about prop b

12,299 Views | 157 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Aust Ag
tailgatetimer10
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 9:23p, 4/22/21
AG
To be honest, I don't care how safe san Antonio, Dallas, and houston is. I want us to maintain where we were.

I'm not picking at your opinions, simply pointing out the fallacy that we are better than (insert city). I want us to keep where we were.
Reply Quote
7
L7 WEENIE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tailgatetimer10 • 9:35p, 4/22/21
AG
tailgatetimer10 said:
To be honest, I don't care how safe san Antonio, Dallas, and houston is. I want us to maintain where we were.

I'm not picking at your opinions, simply pointing out the fallacy that we are better than (insert city). I want us to keep where we were.


That is a respectable comment that I agree with.

Me comparing us to those cities comes from people calling austin a cesspool on this thread and saying that we currently suck.

I don't want to see Austin become less safe, but those issues are not because of some funding being re-routed this year. Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in the country and there are issues that come with that. The city hasn't handled that well and throwing more police at it isn't the answer.

Voting for prop B is a start in the right direction.
Reply Quote
1 edit
oldarmy76
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 9:43p, 4/22/21
Rhonda the Rash said:
I am not a fan of Casar. I live in his district and didn't vote for him....

But at his age he has done a lot. He had a lot of success with his non-profit work (which is real work) and is a city rep in a top 15 city in the country.


His non profit work was perfecting the art of a shakedown...for his own profit. Like any good commie. Workers defense fund.
Reply Quote
15
Imsodopey
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:30a, 4/23/21
AG
Voted
Reply Quote
1
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:48a, 4/23/21
AG
I'm interested to see some polling on this issue. I want to think it will overwhelmingly pass but I'm disturbed at how many people (mostly on twitter and reddit) are staunchly against it, and say that voting for it means you hate the homeless.
Reply Quote
L7 WEENIE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 10:49a, 4/23/21
AG
larry culpepper said:
I'm interested to see some polling on this issue. I want to think it will overwhelmingly pass but I'm disturbed at how many people (mostly on twitter and reddit) are staunchly against it, and say that voting for it means you hate the homeless.


It will be very interesting. Many democrats and libertarians are voting for it, I think it will be close.
Reply Quote
Martin Cash
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 4:23p, 4/23/21
AG
Rhonda the Rash said:
tailgatetimer10 said:
To be honest, I don't care how safe san Antonio, Dallas, and houston is. I want us to maintain where we were.

I'm not picking at your opinions, simply pointing out the fallacy that we are better than (insert city). I want us to keep where we were.


That is a respectable comment that I agree with.

Me comparing us to those cities comes from people calling austin a cesspool on this thread and saying that we currently suck.

I don't want to see Austin become less safe, but those issues are not because of some funding being re-routed this year. Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in the country and there are issues that come with that. The city hasn't handled that well and throwing more police at it isn't the answer.

Voting for prop B is a start in the right direction.
Throwing less police at it is???

It will probably fail because the bolshevik city council refused to word the proposition accurately on the ballot.
Reply Quote
L7 WEENIE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Cash • 5:21p, 4/23/21
AG
Martin Cash said:
Rhonda the Rash said:
tailgatetimer10 said:
To be honest, I don't care how safe san Antonio, Dallas, and houston is. I want us to maintain where we were.

I'm not picking at your opinions, simply pointing out the fallacy that we are better than (insert city). I want us to keep where we were.


That is a respectable comment that I agree with.

Me comparing us to those cities comes from people calling austin a cesspool on this thread and saying that we currently suck.

I don't want to see Austin become less safe, but those issues are not because of some funding being re-routed this year. Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in the country and there are issues that come with that. The city hasn't handled that well and throwing more police at it isn't the answer.

Voting for prop B is a start in the right direction.
Throwing less police at it is???

It will probably fail because the bolshevik city council refused to word the proposition accurately on the ballot.


I believe that if you took fender benders, non-armed mental health checks, all forms of militarized police tactics and other easy tasks away from cops. Give those responsibilities to people who are specifically trained in those areas to handle them. Anything that would cause police to wear military gear should be handled by the national guard who receive special training in such tactics. Doing these things would bring tensions down with many when handling basic issues. It would also improve cops relationships with the community.

You might disagree with this and I respect that. IMO this is the best way help the community as a whole.
Reply Quote
op_06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:18a, 4/24/21
AG
I hope prop b passes, if anything to send a message to the council. But they've let the cat out of the bag and only a turnover on the council and redirection will solve this issue.

There's a reason the council demanded Austin cops stop telling citizens to watch "Seattle is Dying". The council knows exactly what they are doing. And this is the exact intended consequence of their decisions.

I actually commend Casar since he openly campaigned on it in lieu of the rest who vote in lockstep with him but run more moderate campaigns to fool the electorate.

The statement on the front page of this thread perfectly sums up the issues with this city and how this problem has come to be. The NIMBYs continue to vote for the clowns who make this decision and don't care about the consequences so long as they don't have to deal with it or see it on a daily basis.

When the head of the public safety commission announces that she wants to disarm all Austin police officers, the same week that an Austin cop is shot, it's laughable to take anything they say seriously and frightening that their ideas are even given a platform in the first place.

Reply Quote
13
L7 WEENIE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to op_06 • 9:15a, 4/24/21
AG
Learn the word bipartisan. I know it is hard.

The NIMBY comment is kinda funny and easy to see through as a trolling comment by a conservative who is a sheep unwilling to see a bipartisan issue. Liberals and libertarians are seeing that camping is a false sense of security to the homeless and a health and safety hazard to everyone. We want real solutions like HEAL to spend money on real solutions for the homeless problem.

I have voted for code next, support public housing in my community, have lived next to a halfway house and would support a homeless shelter in my neighborhood. Getting rid of the comping ban is a health and safety concern and not just about seeing tents.

Go back to the politics board where you can live in your partisan echo chamber. This is a real issue with bipartisan adults having a discussion. Your extreme polarized views are the biggest problem with America. Open your eyes and see that you are arguing and getting mad about something no one is fighting against on this thread. You are right that some on the city council suck, but your polarized views are just as damaging.
Reply Quote
2 edits
op_06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 10:03a, 4/24/21
AG
Apologies for striking a nerve this morning. But I've never trolled on this forum and didn't intend to do it today. Everything I've posted is factual information and I deal with these issues on a daily basis.

The overwhelming majority of the homeless population want to be homeless and refuse to adhere to societal norms. The issue is deeper than that because in the mix lay people with mental illness and drug addiction. For those that want help, there are non-profits that exist to help get folks back on their feet and into homes. But giving folks things for free when they don't have skin in the game never leads to a positive outcome.

When this council rescinded the camping ban and effectively made the homeless population a protected class, it created a vacuum that I can't foresee being undone in the foreseeable future.

Folks know that this council welcomes the homeless with open arms. They're policies, combined with lax prosecution from the CAs and DAs office, make this city a paradise for folks with lower living standards.

As an example, it's not uncommon for the ARCH to have empty bed space. But folks have issues adhering to their relatively simple rules of remaining sober and sticking to a curfew for admittance.

I'm at a loss for words if what I've stated is an "extreme, polarized view".

Reply Quote
20
L7 WEENIE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to op_06 • 10:17a, 4/24/21
AG
op_06 said:
Apologies for striking a nerve this morning. But I've never trolled on this forum and didn't intend to do it today. Everything I've posted is factual information and I deal with these issues on a daily basis.

The overwhelming majority of the homeless population want to be homeless and refuse to adhere to societal norms. The issue is deeper than that because in the mix lay people with mental illness and drug addiction. For those that want help, there are non-profits that exist to help get folks back on their feet and into homes. But giving folks things for free when they don't have skin in the game never leads to a positive outcome.

When this council rescinded the camping ban and effectively made the homeless population a protected class, it created a vacuum that I can't foresee being undone in the foreseeable future.

Folks know that this council welcomes the homeless with open arms. They're policies, combined with lax prosecution from the CAs and DAs office, make this city a paradise for folks with lower living standards.

As an example, it's not uncommon for the ARCH to have empty bed space. But folks have issues adhering to their relatively simple rules of remaining sober and sticking to a curfew for admittance.

I'm at a loss for words if what I've stated is an "extreme, polarized view".

you didn't strike a nerve. Take those ad hominem tactics back to the echo chamber

I agree that camping isn't the answer. I agree Greg Casar and Adler suck. I agree that the austin city council sucks.

BUT if you simply think all homeless people don't want to be helped you are foolish. Most homeless people do want to be helped you are just blinded by the loud minority you see on corners. If you don't want to help homeless people then you and I have a morality discrepancy that won't be solved via message board. I pray that you find it in your heart to help those in need as Jesus would.

And in regards to the arch... they were full most nights before camping was allowed but they also have major problems that need to be addressed. First issue is security for those staying with them. They do not have lockers and have restrictions that make it hard for people to protect their possessions.
Reply Quote
op_06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 12:38p, 4/24/21
AG
I'm going to stop engaging with you. You're insinuating that I mean things that I'm not saying while continuing to be condescending across multiple posts. I don't live in an echo chamber and my dissenting opinion clearly rubs you the wrong way.

My opinions don't stem from interactions with homeless folks at stop lights or 3rd party anecdotal stories. I interact with them on a very frequent basis. They're not a substandard class of human being that need to be banned into the shadows. But they should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

The overwhelming majority are homeless by choice and/or have made a lengthy series of decisions over their lifetime to put them into their situation. That's either through substance abuse issues, mental health issues, or through a refusal to adhere to societal norms.

I also agree that we as a society share the responsibility to assist those in need, in part. The difference lies in the volume of burden tax payers should share.

I believe there needs to be a societal safety net for those in need. But the decisions this council is making, and continue to make, will result in an engineered slab of a foundation for the homeless to continue on the same path that put them there in the first place. Simply putting a roof over someone's had at the expense of the taxpayer doesn't solve the underlying issues. As I stated before, when someone doesn't have skin in the game, the problem is rarely solved. Take care.
Reply Quote
16
L7 WEENIE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to op_06 • 12:52p, 4/24/21
AG
We have all agreed camping and the approach city council is taking isn't working.

While some homeless people fit the description you describe, many do not.

Much love and let's all try to stay compassionate towards this in need.







https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf

https://atlantamission.org/7-major-causes-homelessness/
Reply Quote
maverick2076
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 10:41p, 4/24/21
Anyone who thinks the National Guard should be involved in policing has no idea what they are talking about.
Reply Quote
15
L7 WEENIE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to maverick2076 • 10:50p, 4/24/21
AG
Thanks for the productive comment.

I don't want them stepping in often but if militarized vehicles are truly needed (they rarely actually are) it should be them. They are trained to handle it and police need to maintain a good relationship with their community.

Have a good night!
Reply Quote
1 edit
tailgatetimer10
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:09a, 4/25/21
AG
Here, I'll provide productive commentary:

Yes, we need to ensure police accounting is upheld. However, when do we get to the phase of educating the public, from childhood, how to interact with police?

Imo it goes both ways.
Reply Quote
1
maverick2076
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 12:11p, 4/25/21
Other than in very limited units/MOS's/assignments, the National Guard is not trained in arrest procedures, evidence collection/preservation, arrest tactics, SWAT tactics, etc. Just because both drive armored vehicles does not make them equivalent. Again, you do not know what you are talking about.

Reply Quote
16
L7 WEENIE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tailgatetimer10 • 12:15p, 4/25/21
AG
tailgatetimer10 said:
Here, I'll provide productive commentary:

Yes, we need to ensure police accounting is upheld. However, when do we get to the phase of educating the public, from childhood, how to interact with police?

Imo it goes both ways.
How should people interact with police? I will agree that no one should threaten or point a weapon at a police officer (my kid is taught such), but I don't want anyone teaching my kid that police should be placed on a pedestal, need to be kissed up to or should be shown unconditional respect. Cops need to earn that respect both in individual situations and in the community as a whole.
Reply Quote
tailgatetimer10
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 12:39p, 4/25/21
AG
No reason to get defensive. Simple things as: why police operate the way they do, why resisting is bad, etc. Many people are scared ****less of an encounter, and everyone is eventually going to have some type of encounter.

I think everyone agrees police need to be held accountable but I also think it goes both ways. Everyone wants to tell the police how they should operate but no one is talking about the pubic.
Reply Quote
2
L7 WEENIE
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to maverick2076 • 12:40p, 4/25/21
AG
maverick2076 said:
Other than in very limited units/MOS's/assignments, the National Guard is not trained in arrest procedures, evidence collection/preservation, arrest tactics, SWAT tactics, etc. Just because both drive armored vehicles does not make them equivalent. Again, you do not know what you are talking about.

Police should not have militarized vehicles. That's my opinion. You can say what you did above but look at the situations where militarized vehicles/ equipment and are actually needed... cops should not be handling those situations. It isn't the safest option for cops or the community. It will only damage their relationship with the community making it more dangerous for all, including cops.

Most situations are crowd control. The guard can do that and be trained in arrest tactics. If you want to suggest someone other than police to handle that I am open to that discussion. If you are just going to tell me that I'm dumb for not agreeing you should just go to whatever echo chamber you prefer.
Reply Quote
Keeper of The Spirits
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 2:25p, 4/25/21
AG
We had a pretty good and for the most part civil discussion on the role of police on one of the other threads. Even had some great commentary from an LEO.
I believe it was on the funding issue.

I agree we ask police to handle too much, fender benders, mental health calls ect with far too little training and far too little pay

I have spoken with many people, from people who think that Biden has his full mental capacity to people who still think Trump won the election and almost all are for ending the camping.

This is bipartisan but I do feel a certain pressure as a liberal conservative/conservative liberal to not speak out because the right is so in favor of ending. I mean we can't be on the same team right? If you are even the littlest bit left leaning and you support Prop B I encourage you to talk about it with your friends. Let them know this doesn't mean you hate the homeless and that they can also feel ok voting for a position that seems politically right.
Reply Quote
3
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 3:05p, 4/25/21
AG
Rash Lady:

By your comments it is obvious you have no concept of how the National Guard operates or trains. Let's leave policing to the police and leave killing things and disaster relief to the guard.
Reply Quote
16
500,000ags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:10p, 4/25/21
AG
Austin subreddit has a Vice news piece right now. A woman being interviewed lives near the east side Chavez encampment. She said every time she has to pick up human feces that is around her property, she becomes a little less liberal. Jesus.
Reply Quote
1
Martin Cash
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 8:35p, 4/25/21
AG
Rhonda the Rash said:
tailgatetimer10 said:
Here, I'll provide productive commentary:

Yes, we need to ensure police accounting is upheld. However, when do we get to the phase of educating the public, from childhood, how to interact with police?

Imo it goes both ways.
How should people interact with police? I will agree that no one should threaten or point a weapon at a police officer (my kid is taught such), but I don't want anyone teaching my kid that police should be placed on a pedestal, need to be kissed up to or should be shown unconditional respect. Cops need to earn that respect both in individual situations and in the community as a whole.
Good lord.
Reply Quote
10
Potcake
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 8:57p, 4/25/21
AG
BQ78 said:
Rash Lady:
Let's leave policing to the police and leave killing things and disaster relief to the guard.

You may not have been watching the news for quite some time. There is a genesis for the whole discussion of police reform regardless of the defunding tangent.
Reply Quote
Keeper of The Spirits
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:12p, 4/25/21
AG
Quote:
Rhonda the Rash said:
How should people interact with police? I will agree that no one should threaten or point a weapon at a police officer (my kid is taught such), but I don't want anyone teaching my kid that police should be placed on a pedestal, need to be kissed up to or should be shown unconditional respect. Cops need to earn that respect both in individual situations and in the community as a whole.


This x1000 a badge doesn't automatically earn you respect, treating people with respect does. I am not a huge believer in white privilege but I'd guess mine is not taking any **** off any person of authority with an attitude and not being roughly handled . Encounters are almost always friendly but I know my rights and won't hesitate to exert them.
Reply Quote
maverick2076
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to L7 WEENIE • 7:55p, 4/26/21
I'm not calling you dumb for having an opinion that is different than mine. However, you are forming those opinions based on either poor knowledge or flawed assumptions about the National Guard, it's training, and it's missions.

SWAT type engagements, where armored vehicles are most used by law enforcement, have very little similarity to actions in contact that the National Guard is trained in. While the Guard does train (rarely, and only certain units when necessary) on crowd control, training them in "arrest tactics", which would by necessity include training on evidence collection, civil rights, escalating use of force, etc. is far beyond the scope of the Guard.

Quite frankly, National Guard units have their hands full trying to train and maintain proficiency in their wartime tasks and mission set, especially in the face of the constant homeland missions they have had over the last 24 months. Any suggestion that they could do both flies in the face of reality.

Furthermore, I'd seriously question the thought processes of anyone who would bemoan the militarization of the police force, and in the next breath champion handing over police duties to the actual military. Soldiers are trained to close with, engage and destroy the enemy through overwhelming force. It's definitely not the mindset that should be policing our communities.

Several posters on here have tried to explain why policing with the military is a bad idea. Your continued refusal to accept the knowledge and experience of others makes me think that the only echo chamber around here is the one between your ears.
Reply Quote
13
500,000ags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:23p, 4/26/21
AG
I used to think former military should make good cops. I could not have been more ignorant there, to cast such a wide net. Between PTSD and military-style training/thought processes, I'm pretty skeptical now.
Reply Quote
maverick2076
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 500,000ags • 9:35p, 4/26/21
Former military members can and often do make good cops. It's not a profession suited for everyone, however. Military members have to shift their focus and attitude and embrace their new mission and the training and mindset that goes along with it. Some can do it. Some can't. Some people find it hard to give up the military mindset when they leave/retire. But many more have no issues. Instead, they use the skills and experience they gained in the military to succeed in the civilian world.
Reply Quote
1
Who?mikejones!
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:00a, 4/27/21


Sorry olds and Republicans, you're no longer needed here
Reply Quote
9
op_06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Who?mikejones! • 6:16a, 4/27/21
AG
That's odd. I thought the city council was officially "non-partisan"....
Reply Quote
3
tailgatetimer10
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Who?mikejones! • 7:31a, 4/27/21
AG
He can't be out of office soon enough. What an awful leader
Reply Quote
8
Btron
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:34a, 4/27/21
AG
Is that a real tweet? No way that's real.
Reply Quote
Who?mikejones!
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Btron • 7:35a, 4/27/21
It's very real. And there will be no repercussions.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.