Some time ago I read You Can't Win[1], a 1926 memoir by a hobo-by-choice named Jack Black. He describes his life as a hobo in various cities (including SF!), and the picture he paints of the turn-of-the-century will be eerily familiar to anyone living in a major US city today: huge numbers of homeless hopelessly addicted to wine and opium (called "hop") that was cheap and easily accessible in streets and flophouses; tent cities lining the outskirts of town; entire communities of people living in that fashion and outright refusing to re-enter society.
The big difference between now and the turn of the 20th century is that back then, the law had little to no tolerance for public vagrancy. Jack Black describes dodging sheriffs, being locked up for the crimes of vagrancy and burglary, spending long stretches of time in prison and emerging completely unreformed, immediately returning to his life of encampment and crime. Even though ultimately his behavior didn't change, the law made him spend significant lengths of time removed from society.
I don't know what the lesson is here, if there is one. While a century ago their approach also didn't solve the problem, it did result in more livable cities for everyone else in the meantime. Perhaps one takeaway here is that it the problem isn't truly "solvable" given how we have structured our markets-based society.
One thing you mention, floop houses, aka single room occupancy (SRO) units don't really exist anymore though. They were shut down over higher building code standards (because fires) and public health concerns. Although those issues were often overstated and it was supposedly "morality" concerns that played a bigger part. Now since covid, rent has increased dramatically and there's been a corresponding increase in working, non-addict, homeless where I live and that type of housing could help.
JohnMakin 20 days ago [-]
Per your own post you claim two things - that a very similar (and possibly worse) problem existed with ruthless enforcement, yet the problem was still bad. Why is then your conclusion/question that we need more of that, or I guess to more accurately paraphrase what you said, less compassion than we have now? Those things don’t really seem to logically follow.
flustercan 20 days ago [-]
> yet the problem was still bad.
My reading of the comment is that homelessness was not solved but ruthless enforcement made the issues related to homelessness less bad for everyone else who wasn't homeless.
System 1 (permissiveness): Bad for a small percentage of people and sorta bad for everyone else.
System 2 (strict enforcement): Really bad for a small percentage of people, neutral bad for everyone else.
System 3 (theoretical): Everything works pretty well for everyone.
Obviously system 3 is the best option, but it doesn't exist currently in any society anywhere on earth (maybe Japan?) System 2 seems to be the next best option to use while we keep trying to find a workable system 3.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
People have the exact same rights and freedom as you, whether or not they have housing or do things you like. That's what freedom is - doing things you don't like.
People love advertising their embrace of dictatorship and oppression, as if it's clever or smart. It's really a failure of responsibility and duty.
flustercan 20 days ago [-]
All I want is for the laws on the books to be enforced. If a majority decides those laws are bad, they should be taken off the books.
Its currently against the law to litter, shoplift, vandalize, defecate in public, be visibly intoxicated in public, and store private property in public spaces. I think we should enforce those laws.
Should some of those laws be rewritten or abandoned? Maybe! But simply ignoring active laws is the definition of lawlessness and I don't want to live in a lawless community.
There is quite a lot of space in between "I think having laws is good, actually" and "embrace of dictatorship and oppression" but I guess this wouldn't be an internet board discussion without hyperbolic statements.
bryanrasmussen 20 days ago [-]
In S.L.C Utah in the late 80s it was against the law for homeless people to ask for spare change.
One time I was walking with a friend, and a homeless guy asked me for some change and I gave it to him (most of the time I wouldn't because I wasn't exactly rich myself, but at just that time I felt like it), then I turned to cross the street before I had gotten 3 feet from giving the guy the spare change two cops swooped out from seemingly nowhere, accosted me and my friend, and started asking "what did he ask you? did you give him money", this was also quite aggressive the tone of voice of these cops.
Now I'm not the quickest guy on the uptake in these kinds of situations but luckily I was firing on all cylinders that day and so I said "no I didn't give me any money, he asked me what time it was leave me alone" loud enough that the homeless guy who was being detained by a third cop could hear me.
So after a bit more harassment they let us and the homeless guy go.
So first off a lot of laws are quite clearly unconstitutional, and it is an abrogation of freedom of speech that a homeless guy isn't allowed to ask me for money, no matter how uncomfortable it might make me.
My interpretation of rights is that any law which would actually itself be against the laws of the land does not need to be followed at all, but I have noticed that some people who hold your views believe that there are processes whereby illegitimate laws get nullified and until those processes are followed the law should be followed. Do you hold to this view?
Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those? I have encountered the viewpoint, generally in Americans, that the laws that are illegitimate should be followed until overturned and the duty of overturning those unjust laws fall only on the people who care about and are affected by those laws - is this also your viewpoint or do you think it falls on every citizen to oppose the unjust laws to their utmost?
Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?
flustercan 18 days ago [-]
>I have noticed that some people who hold your views believe that there are processes whereby illegitimate laws get nullified and until those processes are followed the law should be followed. Do you hold to this view?
Yeah sorta, my point was more about enforcement than compliance. I don't necessarily think unjust laws should be followed but it certainly should not be up to each individual police officer to decide which laws gets enforced on which people.
If a law is unjust enough and enough people choose to disobey it and the legal system is forced to get involved constantly then I believe we would see a lot more change in the law than with our current system of writing laws then letting cops selectively enforce them.
>Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those?
Yes, just about any restriction on abortion. What am I doing? Not much other than voting, occasionally donating money, and choosing to never live in a state that writes those laws. Would what I do change if there were, say, a national abortion ban? Probably, but I certainly won't count on the police joining in on whatever form of protest I see fit.
I don't think the laws around shoplifting, public intoxication, vandalism, etc. are bad and I am doing nothing to overturn them.
> Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?
No, but the cops who saw you do it were obliged to follow whatever procedure was written into the law. Does SLC still have this law? Having been involved in the enforcement of this law, were you more aware that the law existed and you wanted it changed?
The laws are written democratically, then enforced dictatorially by the whim of a few individuals with a gun. I think this is bad.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
> All I want is for the laws on the books to be enforced.
That's an old rationalization of oppression. The reality is that we don't want all the laws enforced on themselves or their friends, and the laws are never enforced in toto on anyone, except the politically vulnerable.
xcrunner529 20 days ago [-]
We can’t camp in parks and monopolize them for ourselves, nor should the homeless.
bryanrasmussen 20 days ago [-]
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
mmooss 19 days ago [-]
You are free to beg in the halls and offices of Congress, however, if you ask for at least $10 million.
xcrunner529 18 days ago [-]
I guess the poor should be allowed to kill too while we’re at it.
bryanrasmussen 15 days ago [-]
the rather famous quote of course has one point to it - that is those laws mentioned are ones only the poor have any interest in doing, although both rich and poor share the capability of it.
Thus the correct response is not to talk about killing, which is something both the rich and poor have an interest in doing as well as sharing capability, and are often caught doing, but rather:
The law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike from insider trading, or dumping hazardous materials into downstream waters from their factories.
This, rhetorically speaking, would seem to counter the original quote nicely, in showing that the law of course prevents Rich and poor alike in doing things that they have interests in doing, but no poor person is insider trading or dumping hazardous materials from their factories, because the definition of poor includes that they cannot be doing these things.
The thing of course is that the poor may have an interest in insider trading but lack the capacity, whereas everybody has the capacity to sleep under bridges but only the poor really seem to have an interest in it, and really they only have that interest because they are poor.
Which leads me to the following conclusion:
The interests of the poor are forbidden. The capacities of the rich are regulated.
xcrunner529 13 days ago [-]
Hmm I guess I get that. I have so much frustration with all the public spaces being piss pits I guess I miss things.
metalman 20 days ago [-]
The constituion is bieng ignored,over written, its
basic ideals ridiculed, and is unfortunatly the source of ALL LAW.
Not one of the "new laws" bieng enforced or ignored is therfor valid.
Questions of legitamcy and precident are ridiculous.
Enforcing the first page of the constitution, fixes everything.
The other possibility, is decaring a total government shutdown, martial law, and a mandatory
partisipation is drafting a new constitution, with a maximum of 10 pages.
Constitution, then enforcement procedure, but no more "laws", and laws, and laws, and laws, thinking of pi here, infinitly non repeating
but with a sense of horror, rather than wonder
cr125rider 20 days ago [-]
Yes but many of the things that homeless people do is illegal in the eyes of the law, they just look the other way.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
They look the other way for lots of people doing lots of things. Let's start enforcing laws at the top, where the actions are far more consequential, rather than on the vulnerable people at the bottom.
flustercan 18 days ago [-]
Sounds like we agree, enforce all the laws.
mmooss 18 days ago [-]
That would be very oppressive and expensive, and I doubt you really mean it beyond theoretically.
NicholasGurr 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
throwaway_5633 20 days ago [-]
I live in the Netherlands and I’d say we mostly have a system 3, there is little problematic homelessness, housing is often available to those not wanting to live on the street, shelters ban anyone intoxicated. Drug rehabilitation is available to the homelessness (including free alternative drug prescriptions). Public intoxication is policed. If I see someone living in a tent it’s exceptional enough to point it out to a friend.
swexbe 20 days ago [-]
Japan absolutely has a homelessness problem. Not anywhere near as bad as California’s. In my experience they mostly keep themselves out of the way as opposed to western homeless. Not sure if this is due to stricter enforcement or cultural practices.
20 days ago [-]
nobodyandproud 20 days ago [-]
I don’t like how you make System 1 to be somehow
the lesser of two evils.
System 1/2 are both extremely awful, but in different ways.
System 3 would be highly affordable and available housing, coupled with out-of-sight permissiveness but strict enforcement once certain indicative lines are crossed.
xcrunner529 20 days ago [-]
An LA school literally had to put up fencing to hide the homeless next door from being sexual deviants and exposing themselves to children.
nobodyandproud 20 days ago [-]
So then, aren’t you essentially agreeing with me? That permissiveness isn’t better?
xcrunner529 18 days ago [-]
Yep
aksss 20 days ago [-]
I think his conclusion was that enforcement at least makes the city more livable for the people who do choose to be a part of society, air-gapping the problems endemic to vagrancy (assault, abuse, drugs, crime), while having at least a margin deterrence effect.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
> for the people who do choose to be a part of society
That's a pretty crazy qualification: Either be go along with and be accepted by the majority or you are subject to sanctions. That is the opposite of freedom and universal rights.
devilbunny 20 days ago [-]
> go along with and be accepted by the majority or you are subject to sanctions.
That's pretty much criminal law in a nutshell. There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
> That's pretty much criminal law in a nutshell.
It's the opposite. Others liking you or not is irrelevant.
> There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
You absolutely do get to 'impose' them. You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm. That's what freedom is about.
devilbunny 19 days ago [-]
Interesting philosophy, but you do you.
> You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm.
You know there's a reason that there's never been a successful hyperlibertarian society, right? Some people are assholes.
mmooss 19 days ago [-]
This isn't hyperlibertarian or one person's philosophy, it's the foundation of US society, law, and politics.
The Declaration of Independence centers on the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Core to the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. Liberty and justice for all; Marines fight for freedom; land of the free, Statue of Liberty, etc.
If freedom is only doing things other people like, it's meaningless. Causing harm is one thing. People may not like you - maybe I don't like you. Can I pass a law to jail you?
devilbunny 19 days ago [-]
Are you persisting in the idea that homeless tent cities are not a harm to those who are subject to them? It’s a bit meme-ish, but sidewalk poop is actually a quality of life issue.
mmooss 18 days ago [-]
> tent cities are not a harm to those who are subject to them
Nothing inherent about tent cities harms neighbors. They could be badly located but so can lots of things. They suck as housing, but the residents wouldn't be there if they had better options.
> It’s a bit meme-ish
Whatever this means, who cares? We're talking about shelter and human rights, not memes.
> sidewalk poop is actually a quality of life issue
Yes, that could be an actual health risk, but I think people are searching for a justification. I'm dubious it's really a big problem, or one that requires taking away anyone's freedom. How about providing a bathroom?
If it's ok to take away people's freedom, why don't you give up yours? We could force you to walk down a different sidewalk.
aksss 20 days ago [-]
Crazy? To be fair, the minimum bar in American society these days is pretty dang low. Don’t steal, don’t rape, don’t physically assault, don’t walk nude on the sidewalk, don’t poop on the floor of the grocery store, leave the kids alone. With these simple tricks you can largely be ignored to be the “you” which you want to be.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
This discussion and what happens in reality shows the opposite: Being unhoused, having a drug addiction, being perceived as having mental health issues, lack of cleanliness, etc. is all treated as deserving of hate and being a target of oppression - people here are openly calling for oppression - and being treated as a criminal.
aksss 20 days ago [-]
I think you're mistaking society targeting the outcomes and behaviors of vagrancy, to which addiction and mental health can lead (theft, pooping in the wrong places). The social glare starts earlier because of a pretty reliable correlation. That's less about intentional cruelty and more about saving the ship.
mmooss 19 days ago [-]
One justification after another to abuse people, is what I read.
> pretty reliable correlation
I have yet to see that correlation. To my eye, there is a correlation between some things and a lack of housing. For example, access to bathrooms.
But the obsession with poop is becoming childish; poop - gross! In all my time in cities, I don't know that I've ever seen it. I don't know that it's a common problem, but just a dramatic example that advocates like to pull out.
> That's less about intentional cruelty and more about saving the ship.
First, people here are openly embracing cruelty. Second, 'unintentional cruely' would be a highly immature, irresponsible concept.
I think 'saving the ship' is greatly exaggerating the risks in order to justify the abuse. It's a very serious thing to take away someone's inherent, inalienable freedom.
bediger4000 20 days ago [-]
You're forgetting all the prison related employment. That's got to count for something.
ozzzy1 20 days ago [-]
Yea, I'm not seeing this compassionate approach we have been doing for the past decades apparently.
bradleyjg 20 days ago [-]
We spend an enormous amount of money. Unfortunately most of it goes to well meaning, but ineffectual do-gooders rather than actually solving any problems.
Voters very much want a compassionate and effective solution. They just aren’t being offered one.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
Is there a location you are talking about?
> Unfortunately most of it goes to well meaning, but ineffectual do-gooders rather than actually solving any problems.
It sounds like the generic arguments of certain political parties, using terms like 'do-gooders' and calling them 'ineffectual', etc. Is there evidence behind it, in your locale?
The main issue I've seen is that public services are underfunded.
This says SF is looking to spend 70k per homeless person per year in the next few years (in addition to state spending?). I've seen other pieces that mention SF spending anywhere from 250 mil to over a billion per year on homelessness. I have multiple friends that make less than 70k per year, in CA, and somehow make do. Lack of money doesn't seem to be the issue here.
bradleyjg 20 days ago [-]
The main issue I've seen is that public services are underfunded.
How do you explain Vancouver or Stockholm’s homeless populations? Those famously underfunded Swedish and Canadian welfare states?
Some people just can’t wait to spend other people’s money and aren’t too picky about whether or not it’ll accomplish anything.
piva00 20 days ago [-]
To be honest, homelessness in Stockholm is really, really low. The very few homeless I see here are in a couple of spots in the city (mainly by Östermalmstorgs t-bana) are there by choice and go into shelters most nights.
I don't ever see homeless people in tents or anything similar.
bradleyjg 20 days ago [-]
I was there a little under a decade and saw plenty of vagrants. Not comparable to sf or anything but they were there.
If you’ve cleared it all up since then, kudos. But I don’t think it’s because public services were underfunded back then.
piva00 20 days ago [-]
What kind of vagrants? There used to be tons of roma people panhandling but they aren't homeless, and since the pandemic they're much less numerous (I'd guess I see less than a 1/5 of what I used to).
I really don't think you saw "plenty" of homeless on the streets here, not now and not a decade ago. Panhandlers, beggars, etc. do exist but they aren't homeless.
I do not trust your anecdotal experience, not saying the issue doesn't exist but it's not even close to a problem and orders of magnitude less than anything I've experienced traveling in the USA, around the Bay Area, Texas (Austin/Dallas), New York, Portland, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and a few other places had a very acute and visible issue with homelessness that's incomparable with Stockholm.
So yes, public services being properly funded help a lot.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
Your evidence is some anecodtal experience from a decade ago? How do you know the causes of what you remember seeing?
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
> Some people just can’t wait to spend other people’s money and aren’t too picky about whether or not it’ll accomplish anything
What value does that have? You must have something valuable to contribute.
bradleyjg 20 days ago [-]
I suggest you peruse Matthew 7:5. I have nothing further to say to you.
xcrunner529 20 days ago [-]
Are you literally citing a religious text for policy in a free country? Lmao.
IncreasePosts 20 days ago [-]
"homeless" is a very broad term, and I think we need to segment it out because not everyone needs the same response.
The single parent who is trying to make life work, who loses her job for some reason, and becomes homeless? Compassion.
The drug addicted thief who has no interest in being a part of society, who basically wants to live that way? I don't think compassion is the right answer. If you show compassion to that type, you will just be taken advantage of.
kstrauser 20 days ago [-]
We should have compassion for everyone, albeit it's pretty difficult for genuinely horrible people. However, compassion doesn't mean giving them everything they want without conditions. That's enablement, and isn't compassionate at all.
jyounker 16 days ago [-]
The most effective policy for fixing homeless is, surprise, giving people places to live.
It's hard for people to address any other problems in their life unless they have a roof over their head, if for no other reason that the homeless are chronically severely under-slept.
plagiarist 20 days ago [-]
I agree. Maybe it would be neat if we could criminalize the theft part instead of the homelessness and drug addiction?
kstrauser 20 days ago [-]
I am completely on board with that idea.
It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless. It should be a crime to do criminal things.
piva00 20 days ago [-]
> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
plagiarist 20 days ago [-]
Homelessness is illegal for everyone and wage theft is a civil court case for everyone. A truly just and equitable system with prosperity for all.
piva00 20 days ago [-]
I invite you to read the quote again juxtaposed with your reply. I don't think you got it.
kstrauser 20 days ago [-]
I read their words as sarcastic, and agreeing with you.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
I think some things said in this discussion are genuinely horrible - should I hate those people? Should they be locked up?
kstrauser 20 days ago [-]
> I think some things said in this discussion are genuinely horrible - should I hate those people?
You do you. I try not to hate anyone, although I grant myself some leniency when considering child molesters, serial killers, and other people I find despicable.
> Should they be locked up?
100% of the people I strongly dislike have done things that should earn them jail time. I don't know what your thresholds are.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
> 100% of the people I strongly dislike have done things that should earn them jail time. I don't know what your thresholds are.
That seems a bit too convenient and perfect. But people were talking about using police on homeless people, who aren't child molesters and serial killers.
> other people I find despicable
That's the problem - your personal feelings aren't relevant.
kstrauser 20 days ago [-]
I have no idea what you're trying to say, and I suspect you might've completely misunderstood what I wrote.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
The subtext is, 1) People like me but on hard times get compassion, people unlike me get hate. 2) Hate is an ok response.
I've never regretted compassion.
cr125rider 20 days ago [-]
It’s not hate it’s just not forcing society on someone who doesn’t want it.
Derawk 19 days ago [-]
Everyone is different, and homelessness is complicated. Ideally you just build the housing - that should be enough for many. But, there are plenty others who can’t function due to illness — and/or have made certain choices not to participate in society.
I believe that the greater majority fall into the homeless not by choice but I’ve befriended several homeless by choice people. They take advantage of all the services and often have no incentive or intention to participate in society in any meaningful way. They tend to dislike authority and value personal freedom above all else. They are often friendly and very intelligent but they love to piss people off too.
It’s easier to spot these people in times of housing abundance so we should solve the shortage first IMO.
tharmas 19 days ago [-]
Agreed. The only solution to the housing problem is building public housing. Yes, theres all kinds of problems with that but a nice side effect is it reduces housing costs for all income groups.
But of course for those who bought a house for financial investment purposes (retirement plan, rent seeking, flipping) solving the housing problem is not a benefit.
schaefer 20 days ago [-]
What a great book recommendation. Thank you.
throw16180339 20 days ago [-]
You might also like Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell.
JohnMakin 20 days ago [-]
I live in an area with massive homeless populations and in an area where the average price of rent has raised nearly 50% in the period since COVID-19. I've seen a startling amount of what I can only describe as "new" homeless in this same period, and a growing cruelty in the way my city and surrounding cities have decided to deal with the problem. I think systemically, the cruelty might be a little bit of the point - fear of homelessness has way too many times in my life gotten my ass out of bed in the morning for a soul-crushing minimum wage gig. Being poor or sick or mentally ill should not be criminalized, unfortunately, that ship has long sailed.
nelsoch 20 days ago [-]
"""- fear of homelessness has way too many times in my life gotten my ass out of bed in the morning for a soul-crushing minimum wage gig. Being poor or sick or mentally ill should not be criminalized, unfortunately, that ship has long sailed."""
It doesn't help with all the layoffs that subsequently caused people not to be able afford previous living conditions- which means having to have had to relocate far- far away from family.
A lot of former IT colleagues of mine have degraded their way of living to sleeping on friends couches or leaving the industry altogether for manageable pay.
Personally, I've always had the paranoia of getting axed for being sick 'at a bad time' for one of my previous employers. My current company seems to be mostly sympathetic, which has left me in a awkwardly distrustful/appreciative state. But with things winding down right now- I'm not sure where my future lies come the turn of the year.
s17n 20 days ago [-]
"She told me she knows that her belongings are an “eyesore,” so she tries to keep them out of the way."
If only all homeless people were like this. As someone who lives in an epicenter of this stuff, I don't think that encampments / people living in tents on the street are inherently a problem - its the small number of homeless people who aggressively spread trash and human waste everywhere that are making the neighborhood unlivable for everyone. Probably these people are dealing with mental health crises, maybe they are just dicks, but either way we have to get them off the street and I'm pretty sure the only way for that to happen is through oppressive policies.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
That's true in every neighborhood - everyone has that one neighbor who doesn't take care of trash, has problems with rats, etc.
We keep trying to signal out people without housing as different, but it's never true. It's just the house that's missing.
> we have to get them off the street and I'm pretty sure the only way for that to happen is through oppressive policies.
Who cares if you think something is an eyesore? Maybe you're an eyesore to me; can I arrest you? Your words are much more obnoxious and dangerous than the unhoused person you describe; can we jail you? Only oppressive policies will work.
You'd better start standing up for human rights and freedom before it's too late. Oppression is a crime against the rule of law and human rights, not a policy.
throwup238 20 days ago [-]
Calling trash and human waste on the streets an eyesore trivializes the discussion and gets us nowhere. Human feces in the streets is a public health issue, as is trash that invites rats which - lest we forget - are partially responsible for spreading one of the deadliest pandemics in human history.
jyounker 16 days ago [-]
Suggested solutions: Suitably positioned and serviced trash cans and public toilets.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
Call it whatever you want, but my point is the same.
s17n 19 days ago [-]
I live in an urban neighborhood where the housing is all apartments. I'm sure that some of my housed neighbors have trouble handling their trash and do destructive things to their own spaces, but it essentially doesn't affect me at all because its happening inside a closed concrete box. Homeless people doing the same thing, on the other hand, mean that I have to pick through the piles of trash and shit every time I leave my home, which in my opinion is just not reasonable.
I'm not saying that the homeless people are worse people or something, but the massive negative externalities they are causing are a result of them being homeless. Giving them housing would obviously be one solution! I'm not very optimistic about that happening in the USA, though, unless you consider prison to be housing.
mmooss 19 days ago [-]
You really have no external problems with neighbors? People leaving trash outside the dumpster? All the other externalities of life near other people?
Where is this wonderful neighborhood? :)
> pick through the piles of trash and shit every time I leave my home
There are piles of trash and shit? Wow. Why don't you use your freedom and move?
> massive negative externalities they are causing are a result of them being homeless.
Words like "piles" and "massive" don't increase the evidence or reason; they aren't an argument.
Your argument is that you can't think of a solution, so you'll just abuse these people. Then your preferences are creating a massive externality. The people without homes aren't causing you to be arrested.
s17n 19 days ago [-]
> People leaving trash outside the dumpster?
Have you ever actually lived in a city?
> There are piles of trash and shit? Wow. Why don't you use your freedom and move?
I'm doing just that, moving to another neighborhood on Feb 1.
> Your argument is that you can't think of a solution, so you'll just abuse these people.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread: I think the need of the thousands of residents of the neighborhood to have livable streets outweigh whatever concern you might have about the well being of a few destructive individuals.
mmooss 19 days ago [-]
I've lived in many cities. I don't think I've ever lived someplace without a few troublesome, housed, neighbors - including those who left their trash outside the dumpster!
> the need of the thousands of residents of the neighborhood to have livable streets outweigh whatever concern you might have about the well being of a few destructive individuals.
It's their rights and freedom, and that applies to everyone. Other people can't outweigh them - rights are not subject to majority rules, that is the point of having rights.
'Liveable' is too loose a standard. Actual harm would be meaningful.
cr125rider 20 days ago [-]
If you give the person blasted out of their mind on drugs smearing feces everywhere a house, it’s just gonna be a feces smeared house. There’s a lot more investment required for someone like that.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
I think that's a strawperson. I've never seen such people. Even the feces thing seems like a trope - an emotional trigger, but I've never seen it. I'm not saying such things never happen, but not enough to be an issue.
s17n 20 days ago [-]
They happen literally every day where I live.
xcrunner529 20 days ago [-]
There is a group in Chicago that sets up right on the bike path blocking it under a bridge. But I complained about it and the people on reddit made excuses.
scaramanga 20 days ago [-]
Yes, if only the homeless were more considerate of MY needs.
s17n 20 days ago [-]
Yes, I think that the needs of the other few thousand others who live here are more important than the needs of a few destructive people.
ChoHag 20 days ago [-]
You don't see the homeless people who keep themselves and their belongings out of your sight.
exabrial 20 days ago [-]
In nearly every US State, if someone trespasses on your property and abandons their assets on it, you're completely allowed to dispose or liquidate their assets after a reasonable amount of time. If they've been warned about their trespass (signs, verbal warnings, etc) this period can pretty short or require no further attempts. To my knowledge, no state has provisions that you must care for or even attempt to reunite the owner with their property.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
If people have no home of their own, where do they put their assets?
exabrial 19 days ago [-]
You're allowed to keep them on your person. This isn't difficult.
mmooss 19 days ago [-]
Could you keep all your assets on your person? What do you carry every day?
bryanlarsen 20 days ago [-]
There may not be a legal obligation, but there's still a moral obligation.
exabrial 19 days ago [-]
There's also a moral obligation to not trespass.
bryanlarsen 19 days ago [-]
Even if trespass was comparable to taking everything that somebody owns, two wrongs don't make a right.
GenerocUsername 20 days ago [-]
"their belongings"
Having had my car prowled by homeless several times, and any yard decoration pillaged over the years, the objects in homeless camps are 90% stolen and 9% donated, and 1% actual belongings of a person
rmk 20 days ago [-]
The article talks about (well, at least, opens with) instances where Courts have ordered that belongings be restored, but where cities have failed to do so. One example is that of a woman losing her husband's ashes.
I think it is callous to comment about how homeless people happen to be in possession of their belongings without at least reading the article. It is a fair comment, however, to ask if examples are cherrypicked to tug at the readers' heart strings, with an agenda in mind.
I do think this article uses numerous tricks to promote this agenda.
- Referring to residents as "housed residents", as if homeless people should be considered "residents" in neighborhoods they have no business being in, in the first place.
- Saying that people are _usually_ forced to move without any connections to housing or support, but then following up with the qualification "sometimes" in the next sentence.
- Citing an example of a lady whose daughter's picture was taken away, as well as her tent, during a cold winter, while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst (people such as you). What about _their_ humanity?
giraffe_lady 20 days ago [-]
> Referring to residents as "housed residents", as if homeless people should be considered "residents" in neighborhoods they have no business being in, in the first place.
Well, why not? Are they residents of anywhere? If not, do you see how easily that slides into not needing to provide services for them? Not considering them deserving of anything, in fact?
> while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst
We mostly get this, in most articles and conversations on this subject. Read nearly any article about it and count quotes by homeless people vs anyone else. Try it in this comment section.
>And anyway what about their humanity?
When I see a homeless person I think god what has been done to them. Not look what they are doing to me.
rmk 20 days ago [-]
> Well, why not? Are they residents of anywhere? If not, do you see how easily that slides into not needing to provide services for them? Not considering them deserving of anything, in fact?
They are not residents, period. They are vagrants, or transients. I do not agree that vagrants and transients lose property rights summarily, but the idea of calling them some type of "resident" is ridiculous.
giraffe_lady 20 days ago [-]
A person homeless in the town they grew up in and never left is vagrant or transient?
Homeless people are not for the most part rootless drifters. They have family, churches, regular AA groups, doctors, in some cases jobs even. They are part of your community and as such how you relate to and treat them and yes even describe them reflects on you.
GenerocUsername 20 days ago [-]
You seem to have the TV news version of homeless in mind.
The homeless ruining my city and many other major and mid size cities are literally drug addicts from all over the country and even world who sort of just shuffle around from one city to the next between jail visits
giraffe_lady 19 days ago [-]
I have in mind the homeless people I personally know.
felurx 20 days ago [-]
Genuine curiosity: How do you know?
giraffe_lady 20 days ago [-]
The link through to the other article with specific examples is illuminating. It's a lot of medication and paperwork, and little relics of a more normal life before. Photos of loved ones, ashes of a dead spouse. Nasty work to post this comment here.
aksss 20 days ago [-]
Not nasty, a fair observation even if over generalizing. Let’s not shy away from the reality. Yes, mementos of past lives and paperwork do exist as a fractional though important part of the whole, but the point that by volume much of the material in an encampment is stolen is not nasty, but reflected by any visual tour. If you’ve been through the experience of having anything and everything gradually stolen out of your yard and car if it’s not bolted down, with the police not giving a flying F about your loss or the problem systemically, it’s annoying to listen to such deference and enablement. That frustration isn’t the best guiding light for policy, but being dismissive of it or shaming the contributing elements of society into not expressing the frustrations they live with is not a healthy way to address the problem either.
giraffe_lady 20 days ago [-]
> If you’ve been through the experience of having anything and everything gradually stolen out of your yard and car if it’s not bolted down, with the police not giving a flying F about your loss or the problem systemically,
I've been through the experience of being homeless. I have some opinions about the degree to which the police cared about my problems too.
I once stole a tarp out of a yard in the face of an incoming blizzard I was hoping to survive. My sympathies are never going to be with the yard guardians here.
aksss 20 days ago [-]
Not many people would begrudge a tarp to a person in need, if asked, and the reality is that most theft of other peoples’ belongings absolutely doesn’t happen under such a circumstance.
Framing the problem as such is a self-deluding and dishonest application of exceptional circumstances to the whole.
Also, there’s probably at least a little room for reflection about how you wound up in the situation where your very survival depended upon stealing from others, why you chose not to knock on the door and ask, and the choices you made to get out of such life circumstances.
giraffe_lady 20 days ago [-]
The first time I slept on the street was during middle school. The reflection we need to be doing is how we've created these circumstances, and why we allow people to continue to suffer them. This is your world too.
NicholasGurr 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
lantry 19 days ago [-]
> reflected by any visual tour
Can you explain how to visually determine the ownership of a given item? What visual distinction is there between something that is rightfully theirs, something that was stolen, and something that was picked out of the trash?
aksss 12 days ago [-]
e.g., a pile of empty exchangeable propane tanks, spraypainted bicycles. IYKYK
bradleyjg 20 days ago [-]
But our reporting shows there are more effective and compassionate ways for cities to deal with these issues.
Their reporting did no such thing. Neither the article itself nor the linked guide have any case study naming a single city trying something else and having it work.
6 cities that have made substantial inroads on their homelessness problems.
The way to do it seems to be to offer homeless people homes.
czhu12 20 days ago [-]
The title of this article is “6 Best Cities To Be Homeless in the US”. The article also says that two of them have made little to no progress with their homelessness (san Diego and Berkeley). And the others are still struggling with the problem.
The article seems to answer the question of: where is it easiest to live on the street, as it mentions Berkeley and San Diego having good weather, therefore, being easier to live outside.
The only success story seems to be Houston which famously has a low cost of living. I’m not sure this qualifies as a solution to the problem.
Salt Lake City and Utah in general are the poster city/state for the program.
Rendello 20 days ago [-]
I'm curious to know the difference in approach where it's is effective, and where it's not. I've heard nothing but good from HF with regards to places like Finland, but this CBC report from Ottawa is grim:
I’ve been to Salt Lake City. They have street homeless.
AnimalMuppet 19 days ago [-]
They also have a program that seems to be at least somewhat effective at helping them get out of that situation. The fact that it is less than 100% effective, or that some homeless may be unwilling to enter it, does not detract from the usefulness of the program.
bradleyjg 19 days ago [-]
There’s been times and places in American history without visible street homeless. So I don’t think I’m setting an unreasonable bar for effective.
blackeyeblitzar 20 days ago [-]
This doesn’t work always, or even most of the time. There are populations of homeless people that refuse services and are homeless on purpose (for example to abuse drugs freely). I recall reading about situations like homeless people destroying shelter offered to them - for example stripping wiring or selling appliances to get cash to fuel addictions. There are some people that need mental health services and can’t survive even if offered shelter.
That said, I do feel it is cheaper to subsidize housing directly than to fund the grift heavy homeless industrial complex that we find in cities like SF or Portland or Seattle, where lots of money is spent with no results.
mmooss 20 days ago [-]
In my experience, these are myths used to demonize people without homes and undermine programs to help them. Is there evidence that these issues are significant, or is it just something repeated on the Internet?
NicholasGurr 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
scaramanga 20 days ago [-]
Among the proposed strategies is to actually do such studies:
Most of the other suggestions are banal, and self-evident qualitative improvements (assuming you agree with the authors that homeless are people to be helped, and not a problem to be solved, which I wouldn't take for granted on HN). eg. maybe cops and sanitation workers aren't equipped to help people, so why are we sending them? Maybe housing costs are too high and we should build affordable housing? and other points which ChatGPT could probably summarize.
cess11 20 days ago [-]
The tyrants following their own policies might be more effective and compassionate. At least that's a suggestion implicated in the article.
s17n 20 days ago [-]
It's the "effective" bit that the article doesn't address whatsoever.
cess11 20 days ago [-]
OK, so if the tyrants were to follow regulations and court orders, why couldn't that possibly be more effective?
giraffe_lady 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
ChoHag 20 days ago [-]
[dead]
incredible1 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
zenethian 20 days ago [-]
Wow what a horrible, self-centered, inhumane way to look at this.
incredible1 20 days ago [-]
I find the over-the-top righteous indignation on this topic a bit humorous.
I just want to treat the homeless fairly, like the rest of us. We're all equals as human beings, no? How are they paying back in to local government? Heck, they've all but taken over public libraries in the biggest cities in the US, but they get to pay absolutely nothing for them? You don't think it's a bit dehumanizing or at least infantilizing to treat the homeless like they don't owe anything for the resources they use? We're primarily talking about grown adults.
I'll add, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek in my initial comment, knowing that there is no way these cities are making money off of programs like these. The actual effort of gathering up homeless peoples' belongings and storing them must cost a lot. And there's no reason to think they're selling the items to try and make up the money.
utopicwork 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
incredible1 20 days ago [-]
Receiving a reply like this makes me know I am doing something right.
utopicwork 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
Fin_Code 20 days ago [-]
As with most homeless issues the problem is a hard one. You can't let them accumulate trash. These sweeps are the only practical way of dealing with the issue. Is there more humane and compassionate approaches, maybe. But storing and proving ownership of property would be difficult and fraught with issues.
As with most other social issues. If you want this compassion find a way to pay for it yourself. The city is already operating on the input of its citizens and would love for you to take the issue off their hands.
The big difference between now and the turn of the 20th century is that back then, the law had little to no tolerance for public vagrancy. Jack Black describes dodging sheriffs, being locked up for the crimes of vagrancy and burglary, spending long stretches of time in prison and emerging completely unreformed, immediately returning to his life of encampment and crime. Even though ultimately his behavior didn't change, the law made him spend significant lengths of time removed from society.
I don't know what the lesson is here, if there is one. While a century ago their approach also didn't solve the problem, it did result in more livable cities for everyone else in the meantime. Perhaps one takeaway here is that it the problem isn't truly "solvable" given how we have structured our markets-based society.
[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/jack-black/you-cant-win
My reading of the comment is that homelessness was not solved but ruthless enforcement made the issues related to homelessness less bad for everyone else who wasn't homeless.
System 1 (permissiveness): Bad for a small percentage of people and sorta bad for everyone else.
System 2 (strict enforcement): Really bad for a small percentage of people, neutral bad for everyone else.
System 3 (theoretical): Everything works pretty well for everyone.
Obviously system 3 is the best option, but it doesn't exist currently in any society anywhere on earth (maybe Japan?) System 2 seems to be the next best option to use while we keep trying to find a workable system 3.
People love advertising their embrace of dictatorship and oppression, as if it's clever or smart. It's really a failure of responsibility and duty.
Its currently against the law to litter, shoplift, vandalize, defecate in public, be visibly intoxicated in public, and store private property in public spaces. I think we should enforce those laws.
Should some of those laws be rewritten or abandoned? Maybe! But simply ignoring active laws is the definition of lawlessness and I don't want to live in a lawless community.
There is quite a lot of space in between "I think having laws is good, actually" and "embrace of dictatorship and oppression" but I guess this wouldn't be an internet board discussion without hyperbolic statements.
One time I was walking with a friend, and a homeless guy asked me for some change and I gave it to him (most of the time I wouldn't because I wasn't exactly rich myself, but at just that time I felt like it), then I turned to cross the street before I had gotten 3 feet from giving the guy the spare change two cops swooped out from seemingly nowhere, accosted me and my friend, and started asking "what did he ask you? did you give him money", this was also quite aggressive the tone of voice of these cops.
Now I'm not the quickest guy on the uptake in these kinds of situations but luckily I was firing on all cylinders that day and so I said "no I didn't give me any money, he asked me what time it was leave me alone" loud enough that the homeless guy who was being detained by a third cop could hear me.
So after a bit more harassment they let us and the homeless guy go.
So first off a lot of laws are quite clearly unconstitutional, and it is an abrogation of freedom of speech that a homeless guy isn't allowed to ask me for money, no matter how uncomfortable it might make me.
My interpretation of rights is that any law which would actually itself be against the laws of the land does not need to be followed at all, but I have noticed that some people who hold your views believe that there are processes whereby illegitimate laws get nullified and until those processes are followed the law should be followed. Do you hold to this view?
Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those? I have encountered the viewpoint, generally in Americans, that the laws that are illegitimate should be followed until overturned and the duty of overturning those unjust laws fall only on the people who care about and are affected by those laws - is this also your viewpoint or do you think it falls on every citizen to oppose the unjust laws to their utmost?
Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?
Yeah sorta, my point was more about enforcement than compliance. I don't necessarily think unjust laws should be followed but it certainly should not be up to each individual police officer to decide which laws gets enforced on which people.
If a law is unjust enough and enough people choose to disobey it and the legal system is forced to get involved constantly then I believe we would see a lot more change in the law than with our current system of writing laws then letting cops selectively enforce them.
>Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those?
Yes, just about any restriction on abortion. What am I doing? Not much other than voting, occasionally donating money, and choosing to never live in a state that writes those laws. Would what I do change if there were, say, a national abortion ban? Probably, but I certainly won't count on the police joining in on whatever form of protest I see fit.
I don't think the laws around shoplifting, public intoxication, vandalism, etc. are bad and I am doing nothing to overturn them.
> Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?
No, but the cops who saw you do it were obliged to follow whatever procedure was written into the law. Does SLC still have this law? Having been involved in the enforcement of this law, were you more aware that the law existed and you wanted it changed?
The laws are written democratically, then enforced dictatorially by the whim of a few individuals with a gun. I think this is bad.
That's an old rationalization of oppression. The reality is that we don't want all the laws enforced on themselves or their friends, and the laws are never enforced in toto on anyone, except the politically vulnerable.
Thus the correct response is not to talk about killing, which is something both the rich and poor have an interest in doing as well as sharing capability, and are often caught doing, but rather:
The law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike from insider trading, or dumping hazardous materials into downstream waters from their factories.
This, rhetorically speaking, would seem to counter the original quote nicely, in showing that the law of course prevents Rich and poor alike in doing things that they have interests in doing, but no poor person is insider trading or dumping hazardous materials from their factories, because the definition of poor includes that they cannot be doing these things.
The thing of course is that the poor may have an interest in insider trading but lack the capacity, whereas everybody has the capacity to sleep under bridges but only the poor really seem to have an interest in it, and really they only have that interest because they are poor.
Which leads me to the following conclusion:
The interests of the poor are forbidden. The capacities of the rich are regulated.
Not one of the "new laws" bieng enforced or ignored is therfor valid.
Questions of legitamcy and precident are ridiculous.
Enforcing the first page of the constitution, fixes everything.
The other possibility, is decaring a total government shutdown, martial law, and a mandatory partisipation is drafting a new constitution, with a maximum of 10 pages.
Constitution, then enforcement procedure, but no more "laws", and laws, and laws, and laws, thinking of pi here, infinitly non repeating but with a sense of horror, rather than wonder
System 1/2 are both extremely awful, but in different ways.
System 3 would be highly affordable and available housing, coupled with out-of-sight permissiveness but strict enforcement once certain indicative lines are crossed.
That's a pretty crazy qualification: Either be go along with and be accepted by the majority or you are subject to sanctions. That is the opposite of freedom and universal rights.
That's pretty much criminal law in a nutshell. There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
It's the opposite. Others liking you or not is irrelevant.
> There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
You absolutely do get to 'impose' them. You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm. That's what freedom is about.
> You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm.
You know there's a reason that there's never been a successful hyperlibertarian society, right? Some people are assholes.
The Declaration of Independence centers on the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Core to the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. Liberty and justice for all; Marines fight for freedom; land of the free, Statue of Liberty, etc.
If freedom is only doing things other people like, it's meaningless. Causing harm is one thing. People may not like you - maybe I don't like you. Can I pass a law to jail you?
Nothing inherent about tent cities harms neighbors. They could be badly located but so can lots of things. They suck as housing, but the residents wouldn't be there if they had better options.
> It’s a bit meme-ish
Whatever this means, who cares? We're talking about shelter and human rights, not memes.
> sidewalk poop is actually a quality of life issue
Yes, that could be an actual health risk, but I think people are searching for a justification. I'm dubious it's really a big problem, or one that requires taking away anyone's freedom. How about providing a bathroom?
If it's ok to take away people's freedom, why don't you give up yours? We could force you to walk down a different sidewalk.
> pretty reliable correlation
I have yet to see that correlation. To my eye, there is a correlation between some things and a lack of housing. For example, access to bathrooms.
But the obsession with poop is becoming childish; poop - gross! In all my time in cities, I don't know that I've ever seen it. I don't know that it's a common problem, but just a dramatic example that advocates like to pull out.
> That's less about intentional cruelty and more about saving the ship.
First, people here are openly embracing cruelty. Second, 'unintentional cruely' would be a highly immature, irresponsible concept.
I think 'saving the ship' is greatly exaggerating the risks in order to justify the abuse. It's a very serious thing to take away someone's inherent, inalienable freedom.
Voters very much want a compassionate and effective solution. They just aren’t being offered one.
> Unfortunately most of it goes to well meaning, but ineffectual do-gooders rather than actually solving any problems.
It sounds like the generic arguments of certain political parties, using terms like 'do-gooders' and calling them 'ineffectual', etc. Is there evidence behind it, in your locale?
The main issue I've seen is that public services are underfunded.
This says CA averages spending 42k per year per homeless person, going off the 2022-2021 state budget.
https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-franci...
This says SF is looking to spend 70k per homeless person per year in the next few years (in addition to state spending?). I've seen other pieces that mention SF spending anywhere from 250 mil to over a billion per year on homelessness. I have multiple friends that make less than 70k per year, in CA, and somehow make do. Lack of money doesn't seem to be the issue here.
How do you explain Vancouver or Stockholm’s homeless populations? Those famously underfunded Swedish and Canadian welfare states?
Some people just can’t wait to spend other people’s money and aren’t too picky about whether or not it’ll accomplish anything.
I don't ever see homeless people in tents or anything similar.
If you’ve cleared it all up since then, kudos. But I don’t think it’s because public services were underfunded back then.
I really don't think you saw "plenty" of homeless on the streets here, not now and not a decade ago. Panhandlers, beggars, etc. do exist but they aren't homeless.
I do not trust your anecdotal experience, not saying the issue doesn't exist but it's not even close to a problem and orders of magnitude less than anything I've experienced traveling in the USA, around the Bay Area, Texas (Austin/Dallas), New York, Portland, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and a few other places had a very acute and visible issue with homelessness that's incomparable with Stockholm.
So yes, public services being properly funded help a lot.
What value does that have? You must have something valuable to contribute.
The single parent who is trying to make life work, who loses her job for some reason, and becomes homeless? Compassion.
The drug addicted thief who has no interest in being a part of society, who basically wants to live that way? I don't think compassion is the right answer. If you show compassion to that type, you will just be taken advantage of.
It's hard for people to address any other problems in their life unless they have a roof over their head, if for no other reason that the homeless are chronically severely under-slept.
It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless. It should be a crime to do criminal things.
You do you. I try not to hate anyone, although I grant myself some leniency when considering child molesters, serial killers, and other people I find despicable.
> Should they be locked up?
100% of the people I strongly dislike have done things that should earn them jail time. I don't know what your thresholds are.
That seems a bit too convenient and perfect. But people were talking about using police on homeless people, who aren't child molesters and serial killers.
> other people I find despicable
That's the problem - your personal feelings aren't relevant.
I've never regretted compassion.
I believe that the greater majority fall into the homeless not by choice but I’ve befriended several homeless by choice people. They take advantage of all the services and often have no incentive or intention to participate in society in any meaningful way. They tend to dislike authority and value personal freedom above all else. They are often friendly and very intelligent but they love to piss people off too.
It’s easier to spot these people in times of housing abundance so we should solve the shortage first IMO.
But of course for those who bought a house for financial investment purposes (retirement plan, rent seeking, flipping) solving the housing problem is not a benefit.
It doesn't help with all the layoffs that subsequently caused people not to be able afford previous living conditions- which means having to have had to relocate far- far away from family.
A lot of former IT colleagues of mine have degraded their way of living to sleeping on friends couches or leaving the industry altogether for manageable pay.
Personally, I've always had the paranoia of getting axed for being sick 'at a bad time' for one of my previous employers. My current company seems to be mostly sympathetic, which has left me in a awkwardly distrustful/appreciative state. But with things winding down right now- I'm not sure where my future lies come the turn of the year.
If only all homeless people were like this. As someone who lives in an epicenter of this stuff, I don't think that encampments / people living in tents on the street are inherently a problem - its the small number of homeless people who aggressively spread trash and human waste everywhere that are making the neighborhood unlivable for everyone. Probably these people are dealing with mental health crises, maybe they are just dicks, but either way we have to get them off the street and I'm pretty sure the only way for that to happen is through oppressive policies.
We keep trying to signal out people without housing as different, but it's never true. It's just the house that's missing.
> we have to get them off the street and I'm pretty sure the only way for that to happen is through oppressive policies.
Who cares if you think something is an eyesore? Maybe you're an eyesore to me; can I arrest you? Your words are much more obnoxious and dangerous than the unhoused person you describe; can we jail you? Only oppressive policies will work.
You'd better start standing up for human rights and freedom before it's too late. Oppression is a crime against the rule of law and human rights, not a policy.
I'm not saying that the homeless people are worse people or something, but the massive negative externalities they are causing are a result of them being homeless. Giving them housing would obviously be one solution! I'm not very optimistic about that happening in the USA, though, unless you consider prison to be housing.
Where is this wonderful neighborhood? :)
> pick through the piles of trash and shit every time I leave my home
There are piles of trash and shit? Wow. Why don't you use your freedom and move?
> massive negative externalities they are causing are a result of them being homeless.
Words like "piles" and "massive" don't increase the evidence or reason; they aren't an argument.
Your argument is that you can't think of a solution, so you'll just abuse these people. Then your preferences are creating a massive externality. The people without homes aren't causing you to be arrested.
Have you ever actually lived in a city?
> There are piles of trash and shit? Wow. Why don't you use your freedom and move?
I'm doing just that, moving to another neighborhood on Feb 1.
> Your argument is that you can't think of a solution, so you'll just abuse these people.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread: I think the need of the thousands of residents of the neighborhood to have livable streets outweigh whatever concern you might have about the well being of a few destructive individuals.
> the need of the thousands of residents of the neighborhood to have livable streets outweigh whatever concern you might have about the well being of a few destructive individuals.
It's their rights and freedom, and that applies to everyone. Other people can't outweigh them - rights are not subject to majority rules, that is the point of having rights.
'Liveable' is too loose a standard. Actual harm would be meaningful.
Having had my car prowled by homeless several times, and any yard decoration pillaged over the years, the objects in homeless camps are 90% stolen and 9% donated, and 1% actual belongings of a person
I think it is callous to comment about how homeless people happen to be in possession of their belongings without at least reading the article. It is a fair comment, however, to ask if examples are cherrypicked to tug at the readers' heart strings, with an agenda in mind.
I do think this article uses numerous tricks to promote this agenda.
- Referring to residents as "housed residents", as if homeless people should be considered "residents" in neighborhoods they have no business being in, in the first place.
- Saying that people are _usually_ forced to move without any connections to housing or support, but then following up with the qualification "sometimes" in the next sentence.
- Citing an example of a lady whose daughter's picture was taken away, as well as her tent, during a cold winter, while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst (people such as you). What about _their_ humanity?
Well, why not? Are they residents of anywhere? If not, do you see how easily that slides into not needing to provide services for them? Not considering them deserving of anything, in fact?
> while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst
We mostly get this, in most articles and conversations on this subject. Read nearly any article about it and count quotes by homeless people vs anyone else. Try it in this comment section.
>And anyway what about their humanity?
When I see a homeless person I think god what has been done to them. Not look what they are doing to me.
They are not residents, period. They are vagrants, or transients. I do not agree that vagrants and transients lose property rights summarily, but the idea of calling them some type of "resident" is ridiculous.
Homeless people are not for the most part rootless drifters. They have family, churches, regular AA groups, doctors, in some cases jobs even. They are part of your community and as such how you relate to and treat them and yes even describe them reflects on you.
The homeless ruining my city and many other major and mid size cities are literally drug addicts from all over the country and even world who sort of just shuffle around from one city to the next between jail visits
I've been through the experience of being homeless. I have some opinions about the degree to which the police cared about my problems too.
I once stole a tarp out of a yard in the face of an incoming blizzard I was hoping to survive. My sympathies are never going to be with the yard guardians here.
Framing the problem as such is a self-deluding and dishonest application of exceptional circumstances to the whole.
Also, there’s probably at least a little room for reflection about how you wound up in the situation where your very survival depended upon stealing from others, why you chose not to knock on the door and ask, and the choices you made to get out of such life circumstances.
Can you explain how to visually determine the ownership of a given item? What visual distinction is there between something that is rightfully theirs, something that was stolen, and something that was picked out of the trash?
Their reporting did no such thing. Neither the article itself nor the linked guide have any case study naming a single city trying something else and having it work.
It’s an attempt to create a fact recursively.
6 cities that have made substantial inroads on their homelessness problems. The way to do it seems to be to offer homeless people homes.
The article seems to answer the question of: where is it easiest to live on the street, as it mentions Berkeley and San Diego having good weather, therefore, being easier to live outside.
The only success story seems to be Houston which famously has a low cost of living. I’m not sure this qualifies as a solution to the problem.
Salt Lake City and Utah in general are the poster city/state for the program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMJHp7KqTg
That said, I do feel it is cheaper to subsidize housing directly than to fund the grift heavy homeless industrial complex that we find in cities like SF or Portland or Seattle, where lots of money is spent with no results.
https://www.usich.gov/sites/default/files/document/19%20Stra...
Most of the other suggestions are banal, and self-evident qualitative improvements (assuming you agree with the authors that homeless are people to be helped, and not a problem to be solved, which I wouldn't take for granted on HN). eg. maybe cops and sanitation workers aren't equipped to help people, so why are we sending them? Maybe housing costs are too high and we should build affordable housing? and other points which ChatGPT could probably summarize.
I just want to treat the homeless fairly, like the rest of us. We're all equals as human beings, no? How are they paying back in to local government? Heck, they've all but taken over public libraries in the biggest cities in the US, but they get to pay absolutely nothing for them? You don't think it's a bit dehumanizing or at least infantilizing to treat the homeless like they don't owe anything for the resources they use? We're primarily talking about grown adults.
I'll add, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek in my initial comment, knowing that there is no way these cities are making money off of programs like these. The actual effort of gathering up homeless peoples' belongings and storing them must cost a lot. And there's no reason to think they're selling the items to try and make up the money.
As with most other social issues. If you want this compassion find a way to pay for it yourself. The city is already operating on the input of its citizens and would love for you to take the issue off their hands.