A special parklands “wet zone” where homeless people could camp and drink could be created under plans investigated by Adelaide City Council - despite the area being a dry zone.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/a-wet-zone-for-homeless-people-to-live-and-drink-in-parklands-could-be-created-under-adelaide-city-council-plan/story-fni6uo1m-1227344619195

One councillor has said the plan does not solve the problems at present. Homeless people living out in wet weather over winter?

Article: A charity says evictions don't work, saying “safe drinking spaces” provide transitional accommodation, and is a workable solution.

Article: NIMBY solutions to move these homeless people elsewhere do not tackle the real issues - charity comment.

Too many social charities live off the poor in Australia. Major reform is needed - or is a NIMBY principle, something these charities dont want to face up to?

After all many people will lose their jobs won't they?

Population Management.

Before the Second World War, many families had up to 10 children. During the 1930s world depression and the Second World War, fewer babies being born due to economic hardship and the war effort. In western cultures, with the introduction of aged 65 years old age pensions, national health care, shorter working hours, sick leave and workers compensation, a more secure employment environment with fewer strings attached, the need for large family concerns have faded away.
My concern is with a single economic crash, governments can go debt, debt, debt as they often do and remove the baby reducing incentive benefits, hoping populations not thinking to go back to 19th and early 20th century large families. Once countries are developed, skilled work forces lose an ability to be needed. The people in power and they're supporting mates have a nice life while working classes battle with basic needs supporting a minimum number of children, children being expensive to support and educate. Children have moved from being a 19th and early 20th century family asset into becoming a 21st century expensive liability. The Good Life for many people is slipping away.

Hi Nathan,

Yes, this must be one of the stupidest and most heartless ideas I've heard of in a long time. "Homeless people living out in wet weather over winter?" God almighty, imagine the young people exposed to all manner of dangers, the consequences of almost unlimited booze and ice on the more vulnerable homeless, women especially. NIMBY, to the nth degree. Disgraceful.

Why is anybody homeless ? Of course, there must be a multitude of reasons, but inability to manage one's limited funds must be one major reason, perhaps through mental incapacity or brain damage.

In the old days, there used to be what they called the Destitute Asylum (it sounds horrible) in Kintore Avenue, but such a refuge in today's more enlightened society might go some way to relieving the misery and degradation of many people.

In the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, such refuges kept people alive: the rations were similar to those given out to indigent Aboriginal people and to prisoners.

The bare essentials maybe (and obviously with appopriate supervision and guidance), but surely, in today's social climate, a safe and minimally comfortable environment could be constructed for such unfortunate people. Of course, no grog or drugs of any kind would have to be the first rule and any violent or abusive behaviour would spell expulsion - so, yes some people would still end up on the streets. But at least, that would allow a new start for many people, and enable any rehabilitation and re-integration program, say into study and basic work skills, to make a difference.

Some problems don't have solutions, so there could still be a sort of residual population, no matter what one tries. Dispersing people, over winter, across a paddock, and say 'Do what you like', is hardly positive in comparison, and will very likely result in many personal tragedies for many highly vulnerable people .

Joe

Reading the article and realising 'The Advertiser' is from the stable of the Murdoch gutter press. In the first sentence the word could is used twice. could equally apply the words could not. Then a gutter press favorite. "The Advertiser has learned", learned from whom, could be the cleaner at The Advertiser" an unnamed source of information. Then it goes on to publish an opinion piece by one of twelve Councillors. A Councillor who seems to be often favored by The Advertiser and who is currently involved in a fight with the rest of the City Council.
If The Advertiser is anything like the reprehensible Murdoch publication in Sydney 'The Daily Telecrap', I would not put much stock in anything it had to say.

Hi Pail,

So what are the actual issues ? Yes, there is a problem, too many people are homeless and unprotected: what could be done to make their lives more positive ? Slagging Murdoch is great fun but it doesn't help anybody.

Joe

Many social based charities, now receive large amounts of government funding and have simply turned into "government departments". Many have sold out their original principles in terms of set up - that was to help the poor.

There is also a need for reform, in terms of 2015 standards. After all, we are not living in say 1915, like some Church based charitable groups may have been set up.

Many of these charities will rarely (in any serious way) speak out against State or Federal governments, for fear of losing funding, but this is at the expense of people they were established to assist.

Charities are not simply there to get bucket loads of government and public money.

So what we see (at present) from many charities are no real solutions to a range of social issues in our community and some "solutions" can just be very generalised, with many Australian charities not wanting to be seen as "less" in the class war between charitable groups.

I saw on the ABC Four Corners program for example, re remote communities, very few of the charitable groups had anything serious to say or any serious solutions to the issues at hand. It was (for me) a feeling of, "do nothing and everything will generally turn out fine - at some stage."

Questioning the Government will help, as some of these remote communities are living in appalling conditions. Some community leaders also need to be advised that major change is needed now.

If "socially minded" charities want more public respect and support - do some research first, back up your case with evidence - and throw any socialist policies out the window. Also any right wing groups, please don't stir up any matters for simplistic publicity. Neither elements add to this debate.