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.

Joe,

I am skeptical of the Murdoch press and the way they manipulate the reporting of issues. Often the article is not done to enlighten the reader to what is a very serious issue in society, in this case homelessness, but rather to promote a secondary agenda, possibly here the issue of the Adelaide City Council and who runs it.

Nasthan,

Is it the responsibility of charities to come up with solutions to social problems. Other than dealing with the day to day problems confronting those they serve, what can they do? Charities do provide important practical advise to government, to help it formulate policy, but outside of that what can they do?

"Charities are not simply there to get bucket loads of government and public money." I do not believe charities in the main get bucket loads of money, certainly the ones I know don't, and generally the bonafide charities use their limited resources wisely in the context that they operate in.

However there are a number of groups masquerading as a charity, including church run ones, who are there for no other reason than to add some kind of legitimacy to the parent organisation. With only a small amount of money raised going to the charitable arm.

One of Rudds biggest mistakes was to spend billions on "school halls".
Yes it provided employment and helped keep the economy afloat but the money could have been spent so much more sensibly elsewhere.
Imagine this amount of money being spent on affordable rental housing. There would have been a huge take up now by people unable to buy and unable to afford rents.
There would have been an outcry from developers and affluent investors using negative gearing to dodge tax but that would have been good for the economy.
It would also have made the economy safe from the housing bubble that is going to tear apart Australia in the near future.
Of course it would take a different mindset to the governments concerned to actually do something concrete instead of the circus of sleeping "out" for one night under carefully controlled conditions.

The homeless have always been a pretty big issue. But I think they should be given a place to stay in.

Dear Luca,

Indeed most of them should, but not by the state or its government.

Then what would you do with those who wreck every home they enter or scare the neighbours away? The government, since it is bound by rigid and formal criteria, cannot make the differentiation, but private people can.

Yuyutsu, how can private property owners prevent their tenants from destroying their rental property any better than the government owned housing? If private owners refuse to rent to a party with a bad reputation they will likely get sued for discrimination and loose. Yet the ratbags who regularly move from one wrecked property to another continue to receive handouts, are not held accountable for their destructive actions and essentially are rewarded for their bad behaviour.

Perhaps we need a tent village in the far north to send those who have been evicted for destroying another's property. These people should also lose the right to receive their benefits directly, other than pocket money with the rest going toward food vouchers and directly toward paying their bills.

Has anyone been watching Struggle Street on SBS. If you want to see how the lowest denominator in society lives and behaves, this program is a real eye opener. I'm sorry to say I've never seen such a bunch of losers in my life; I have almost no sympathy for any of them as their plight is 99% self created.

Dear Hippie,

<<If private owners refuse to rent to a party with a bad reputation they will likely get sued for discrimination and loose.>>

Obviously all anti-discrimination laws should be abolished when it comes to private people (but may remain when dealing with public bodies or bodies that receive public funds or benefits). We should have the freedom to deal in every matter only with those we choose, for whatever reason or even for no reason at all.

"Is it the responsibility of charities to come up with solutions to social problems. Other than dealing with the day to day problems confronting those they serve, what can they do?

They can do a lot more - and they need to move out of their current form of operations and many are also not religious based.

For example, re the "wet zone" this issue was brought up on ABC radio, by the city Councillor you mention. This is not commercial press. She highlighted the (good) point, that by getting rid of dry zones (which the charity in question supported in a joint discussion on the ABC program), when summer sets in, people simply return to these areas (as the weather is nice to drink alcohol in - and in places overseas, these policies have been thrown out.

Re remote communities (on ABC's Four Corners), the only suggestion from Amnesty International was to not shut these communities down. Suggestions from other's (in general) have been to live off the mining sector, despite it not being environmentally or financially sustainable.

I agree with ConservativeHippie (on property). My Grandma used to own a rental home (before she died). She was found to be charging too much rent and had to spend over $20,000 to improve her property. The person renting, complained (re rent prices) to a formal goverment authority.

I would also say to people from Struggle Street - stop complaining, blaming SBS and prove to others you can improve your area - NOW.