Homeless Situation is Really Serious

by Jack

We’ve had 3 homeless related homicides that I can recall in the past 12 months inside the city limits. The last two, was yesterday and last week. And stabbings, wow, stabbings are off the charts! This place is going to the bums. Seems like we have something really bad happening every week. And of course we are the one’s picking up the tab for all this chaos and violence. Last week a woman was murdered and last night the police had to shoot a homeless guy who attacked them with a knife during an attempted burglary.

These crazy bums are ruining Chico and the only thing that brings them here is the fact we have been treating them to free meals, plenty of spare change and free lodging. They sure are not coming for employment.

It sure would be nice if the Chief of Police got on the ball and started to do some proactive police work instead of waiting around to pick up the pieces after the fact. His men/women want to do something, but the need leadership that brings forth a coordinated effort. So far that part has been missing.

There is a city council meeting every month folks, maybe you should start showing up and voice your opinion?

This entry was posted in Police, Crime, Security. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Homeless Situation is Really Serious

  1. More Common Sense says:

    Here is a little exercise for everyone. Think of a town you know of that doesn’t have a homeless problem. I can think of many, both close to Chico and far away. Now, go online and look for shelters in those cities. Now, think of cities that have a homeless problem and do the same search. I did just that and what I found is the cities that have a problem have plenty of services. The cities that don’t have a problem don’t. In fact it looks like the cities with the most problems offer the most services.

    I’m for helping those that CAN’T help themselves due to physical issues or mental issues. But we need to quit providing services to people that don’t want to work and want to leach off the programs that are there to help people that really need it. Let’s help the people that have substance abuse problems if they ask for it but no other help if they don’t. If you don’t want to work that’s your problem! Hunger is a good motivator.

  2. Libby says:

    3 ? Three constitutes neither ruin nor carnage.

    I’m telling ya … you and Tina both … your resentment is your problem.

    Per capita, Chico is all peace and prosperity, and that you seem incapable of appreciating what you have, may be something requiring professional attention.

    • Tina says:

      Libby check your own bigoted resentment.

      If the lowest possible standards is good enough for you, if streets filled with feces and urine is your bag, if being hassled by pushy panhandlers and accosted by the mentally ill offers you thrills, if seeing your parks desecrated and trashed makes you feel warm and fuzzy go for it with my blessing. But drop the phony idea that you are doing something significant to help people because it’s total crap. It doesn’t make you a better person, in fact, it makes you an enabler. it is your attitude and low standards that are responsible for the state of not just our city but cities all across America.

      • Peggy says:

        Add the sight and smell of vomit on the sidewalk so large we had to walk in the street with the cars parked at the curb to get around it.

        Nope, don’t go downtown much any more if I don’t have to.

      • Libby says:

        Well I’m not surprised you’re cranky … cause we all know who disgraced himself playing “Hitler Youth” at the Boy Scout Jamboree.

        Lordy. How long are Ryan and McConnell going to let this go on?

        • Tina says:

          I guess you’d go right ahead and step in that puke with a big ol’ smile plastered on your face.

          Lousy segue Libs! An off subject lame excuse to make a crappy Hitler Youth slam because 40,000 boy scouts and their leaders and parents cheered our President.

          When they start turning you in to the authorities and carting you off to prison camps we MIGHT object…close call.

          Apparently you don’t remember this and this and this and this and this.

        • Peggy says:

          Hey Libs, why don’t you share a video of Obama going to the Boy Scout’s Jamboree during any of his eight years in office? Oh that’s right you can’t, because never went even after being invited over and over during his eight years in office.

          I’ll bet it was because of the oath the boys all take to honor God, country and self.

          Boy Scout Oath or Promise:
          “On my honor, I will do my best
          To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
          To help other people at all times;
          To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.”

          Remember at the DNC convention when the democrats dishonored God by trying to remove Him from their platform?

          And Obama constantly dishonoring America by putting the needs of other countries first over his own.

          At least he agreed with, “self” since he left office a millionaire many times over and so much richer than when he was sworn in in 2009. I hear there are missing objects from the WH again.

          I don’t think the Scouts were really cheering for Trump. I think they were cheering for their president and showing how thankful they were he took the time to join in their Jamboree. But, I could be wrong. They could also have been cheering for him too.

          I’m sure they were well aware of all of Obama’s luxurious vacations and trips to play golf in Florida and California. They were just little boys wondering why he wouldn’t take the time to go see them, even once, as seven presidents before him had.

          Trump will be eighth president to visit Boy Scout Jamboree:
          http://wvmetronews.com/2017/07/23/trump-will-be-eighth-president-to-visit-boy-scout-jamboree/

          Presidents who did attend:
          Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Donald J. Trump, Vice President Nixon,

          Where were Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Obama?

          • Chris says:

            Peggy, did you not notice that Reagan is also not on that list? He never attended a Jamboree either.

            Your facts are also wrong; Clinton did attend the 60th Jamboree.

            But you’re deflecting. Not attending the Jamboree is nowhere near as disrespectful as using it to smear one’s political enemies or brag about one’s electoral victory. Which do you think does more damage to the Scouts’ reputation?
            Nearly one-fifth of the speech was political in nature, and this was to a group of children in a charity group that is legally forbidden from engaging in political activity.

            I did not have a problem with the Scouts cheering the president–that’s basic respect. Cheering him when he says “We’re going to repeal Obamacare” isn’t right, as the Scouts are supposed to refrain from political activity in uniform, but I can’t blame the kids too much for that. But booing former President Obama was classless and disrespectful. They failed to exemplify the values of their organization in that moment. I mostly blame Trump, who should have given an apolitical speech like every other president, but the Scouts should have been prepared for this (as it’s what Trump does) and instructed not to go along with the politicization of their event.

            I really can’t believe you brought up golfing and vacations–you do not want to play the numbers game. You can’t possibly not know that Trump has golfed and vacationed far more at this point in his term than Obama had in his. This is indisputable. Criticizing Obama for golfing and vacations and not Trump is the height of hypocrisy.

          • Libby says:

            “… nowhere near as disrespectful as using it to smear one’s political enemies or brag about one’s electoral victory.”

            And don’t forget the salacious innuendo !
            The President of these United States stands up in front of 70,000 little boys and does his “Groady Grampa” to a tee.

          • Tina says:

            First Lady Nancy Reagan attended. It was appropriate since her project was kids and drugs.

            Obama was invited to the 100th birthday and didn’t go. He may have wanted to, I don’t know. But it would have been difficult since the BS were targeted by the LGBT community. (compromise was not an option; the scouts were hounded) It would have been awkward for Obama to say the least.

            Those in attendance were not all “little boys.” The crowd included parents and leaders. The Boy Scout Chief knew the speech would be political and invited him anyway. He looks like he’s having a good time in the picture. Of course after the negative blow back he had to remind everyone that the BS is not a political organization.

            According to one left media report 33% of the speech was political. That means that 66% was devoted to things like, “You are the young people of character and integrity who will serve as leaders of our communities and uphold the sacred values of our nation.”

            Those in attendance did chant, “We love Trump,” so I don’t think it’s accurate to say everyone objected to the speech.

            The President should have kept his remarks to issues related to Boy Scout themes. In different times he might have. He didn’t.

            Presidents should sometimes do things differently…Obama should never have politicized local crimes in Florida and Missouri that he knew nothing about in order to make race an issue…the resulting carnage, loss of property, incidents of violence were unfortunate and costly. His message was totally inappropriate and incited violence and hatred.

            Not fair, you say, he’s not president anymore.

            Yeah, well we’re still living with the failures of his fundamental transformation agenda, including all of the fabricated hate.

          • Chris says:

            I appreciate your understanding position on Obama’s non-attendance, Tina.

            “Those in attendance were not all “little boys.” The crowd included parents and leaders. The Boy Scout Chief knew the speech would be political and invited him anyway. He looks like he’s having a good time in the picture…Those in attendance did chant, “We love Trump,” so I don’t think it’s accurate to say everyone objected to the speech.”

            You realize that’s part of the problem, right? The Boy Scouts are a non-political organization and a charity that is legally forbidden to engage in political activity. The Scouts are instructed not to engage in political activity while in uniform. They did not live up to their values in this case.

            “According to one left media report 33% of the speech was political.”

            Huh. That’s strange; I did my own analysis of the speech for another blog, and only found 18% of the speech political. There were a few passages that could have been construed as political that I chose not to, though, because I was on the fence about them. I’d be interested to see that report and it’s methodology; it’s possible I made mistakes. But even 18% of the speech being political was too much in my opinion, especially the specific political issues mentioned–saying “Merry Christmas” again? Anybody is already free to do that. Getting the crowd to boo the former president? Attacking “fake news” several times? Classless under any circumstances.

            “The President should have kept his remarks to issues related to Boy Scout themes.”

            Glad we can agree here.

    • Harold says:

      Libby you once more come across like a naïve moron, we in Chico have always done more to help those who got lost for a time but were willing to help themselves get out of that life. A question would be what do you do to help those less fortunate, and the answer I will wager will be more silence.

      Chico residents are awaking to the fact we need to restore a quality of life we had years ago, and we lived here because we appreciated that quality of life, but then Liberal idiots like yourself created this current cess pool of social disrespect because the very people your failed fairy dust ideology of hand outs verse hand up’s generated just want more and more hand outs with no effort.

      Where is it written that anyone has to expose themselves to life threating dangers or just stand by watching a once great community like Chico decline?

      You may endorse the sanctuary city aspect of allowing criminals to roam the streets of your domain, if so, so be it but live in your own squalor, we don’t see a need too.

      Most likely you just ignore their harmful activities, by avoiding run down areas your ideology always creates, either way resentment isn’t a problem with us, however it does come across as a vacant comment from you.

      And in avoiding the problem like you seem to do, crime will continue to be a concern, but you must enjoy it because your and your ilk are causing it.

      • Libby says:

        “Where is it written that anyone has to expose themselves to life threating dangers or just stand by watching a once great community like Chico decline?”

        I’m telling you … anybody who proposes this on the available data … 3 … is not rational.

  3. J. Soden says:

    Phoenix used to have the same homeless problem downtown as Chico does now, only worse. They finally moved their homeless “services” out to the suburbs and the bum population dwindled. ‘Course, the heat in the summer helped, too.

    San Diego did the same, along with Vista and Oceanside. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that “if you build it, they will come” also applies to the homeless and taxpayer-funded freebies.

    And the loudest homeless “supporters” are those that don’t have to directly foot the bill for the filth and crime that accompanies da bums.

  4. Jim says:

    The City of Chico needs to put public safety first. We need more police on the streets. Unfortunately they are spending more and more on feel good programs.

    They want to spend millions on the airport and subsidize airline service. Yes the ER article says they don’t want public funds, but they do, the private supporters are on record that they won’t put up their money for this. The city has already spent $200,000 on airport consultants and hired an airport manager. That money should be going to public safety.

    They want to build a bike over pass near 20th St. and hired planners to plan it. Once again this is money that should be going to the police department.

    Things got to change because crime has become a problem in Chico.

    • Tina says:

      Jim good points.

      Jack’s point that there’s public meeting every week is informative but I wonder how responsive the council members would be to suggestions that public safety should take precedence over a bike bridge. The way I look at it a city has room for extras when its citizens and merchants are served and safe, when the priorities of local government are met. Instead it seems like money is allocated to preconceived budget items and those funds can’t be touched even if there is a critical public problem to address. (I could be wrong.) On the other hand, as a former employer I understand that hiring more officers is, or should be, a long term commitment that comes with more than just salary. The city has to have money for all of the extra’s…healthcare, pensions, incredibly generous paid days off. This is one of the reasons the Democrat (socialist) model doesn’t work. The economy flags, revenues go down, they raise taxes, opportunity flags and jibs disappear, revenues go down…and municipalities have a terrible time meeting the most basic obligations to the community…police and fire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *