Wow, the Bulletin really doesn't like the Homeless Capital label. It argues that since the survey that declared Bend 6th in homelessness, and 3rd in rural homelessness was based on a single day survey and didn't really account for the marginally housed, it wasn't accurate.
Real homeless are 'out in the cold.'
But if the survey standards were the same everywhere, I think that puts us right back where we started, no?
In other words, everywhere else had the same standards. Making the survey equal across the board.
It's like trying to argue that an unemployed person really isn't unemployed because he's building a shed for his parents. And that only our local guy building the shed is employed, but not everywhere else where the same thing is happening.
Or am I missing something?
**********
How much am I allowed "Told You So's?" Juniper Ridge has been a disaster from the beginning, with much needed money thrown away on a pipe-dream. We're going to hear all winter how there aren't enough funds to operate basic city services. Wouldn't those millions come in handy now?
BAT? From the start, I've maintained this was a sleight of hand. Something that Bend could never afford before suddenly because affordable -- by buying cheap buses that turned out to be lemons, but living off the temporary funds of a housing bubble.
But Bend has never really supported mass transit. Nor will it, just as it will never vote for a sales tax or a to pump their own gas.
So we're left with a system that will be a constant drain on already dwindling revenues.
Apparently, we'll just keep doing that.
And we'll keep paying the interest on the more or less worthless Juniper Ridge where the only tenants got such good deals (and who were already local business, for a net gain of --- zero ---) that we aren't generating anything there, either.
Businesses that overreach or which are unrealistic go out of business.
Bend projects just keep getting funded by government debt.
Worthy projects? Yes.
Viable? No.
*********
I realize very few people will agree with the following.
But having charity events based on gambling is like having a fundraiser for alcoholism by having a beerfest.
I really have visceral dislike of gambling. I think it's a bad thing to do.
I always wonder how many addicts they are creating for these 'good causes.' Kind of a vicious circle.
Let's see. Let's have an event which encourages gambling, for which we use to proceeds to help say, 'the homeless.'
A certain number of people who gamble become addicts, losing their jobs, families, and eventually their homes.
So becoming homeless so that they may be helped by gambling.
Brilliant.
Real homeless are 'out in the cold.'
But if the survey standards were the same everywhere, I think that puts us right back where we started, no?
In other words, everywhere else had the same standards. Making the survey equal across the board.
It's like trying to argue that an unemployed person really isn't unemployed because he's building a shed for his parents. And that only our local guy building the shed is employed, but not everywhere else where the same thing is happening.
Or am I missing something?
**********
How much am I allowed "Told You So's?" Juniper Ridge has been a disaster from the beginning, with much needed money thrown away on a pipe-dream. We're going to hear all winter how there aren't enough funds to operate basic city services. Wouldn't those millions come in handy now?
BAT? From the start, I've maintained this was a sleight of hand. Something that Bend could never afford before suddenly because affordable -- by buying cheap buses that turned out to be lemons, but living off the temporary funds of a housing bubble.
But Bend has never really supported mass transit. Nor will it, just as it will never vote for a sales tax or a to pump their own gas.
So we're left with a system that will be a constant drain on already dwindling revenues.
Apparently, we'll just keep doing that.
And we'll keep paying the interest on the more or less worthless Juniper Ridge where the only tenants got such good deals (and who were already local business, for a net gain of --- zero ---) that we aren't generating anything there, either.
Businesses that overreach or which are unrealistic go out of business.
Bend projects just keep getting funded by government debt.
Worthy projects? Yes.
Viable? No.
*********
I realize very few people will agree with the following.
But having charity events based on gambling is like having a fundraiser for alcoholism by having a beerfest.
I really have visceral dislike of gambling. I think it's a bad thing to do.
I always wonder how many addicts they are creating for these 'good causes.' Kind of a vicious circle.
Let's see. Let's have an event which encourages gambling, for which we use to proceeds to help say, 'the homeless.'
A certain number of people who gamble become addicts, losing their jobs, families, and eventually their homes.
So becoming homeless so that they may be helped by gambling.
Brilliant.