SyndicalistCPA t1_itgvbz4 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 3:40 PM

Reply to comment by Kab9260 in Any Lakewood residents missing their trees? Shame on you, mayor Coles. by Vinny7777777

This is not true. It can be done on a local level. The problem is that is has to be done by every locality. Newark, for instance, has a good homeless program. It is so good that they get homeless people traveling from Detroit to take advantage of the program. Other towns also send their homeless to Newark (including NYC), because they don't want to fund a program themselves. This overburdens Newark's program and causes the homeless problem to exacerbate in the city.

Kab9260 t1_itgzjqk wrote on October 23, 2022 at 4:10 PM

Exactly why it needs to be funded on the state level or national level to distribute the financial burden.

Right now, it makes more sense financially for municipalities to make homeless unwelcome than finance their long-term care. Newark shouldn’t have to bear the cost on its own.

It also leads to disparities in terms of access to care. Many local charities and shelters only have the funds to help designated populations. State-run facilities would expand access to more people and provide opportunities to get addicts away from the environmental factors that are feeding their addiction.

SyndicalistCPA t1_itgztfd wrote on October 23, 2022 at 4:12 PM

And where would these state-run facilities be? It will always be the cities because the suburbs don't want to face reality from their white picket fences.

Kab9260 t1_ith7r7t wrote on October 23, 2022 at 5:05 PM

It would require political compromise with NJ’s rural counties. Give them what they need to sell it to their constituents as a win.

It’s unlikely that the Republican Party can ever gain a majority in the NJ legislature (governor is a different story). This leaves room for compromise as long as they can still sell it as a win.