Enabling the homeless to sleep in public spaces like park benches and in front of businesses doesn’t make them safer. It creates more conflict for them, leaves them exposed (to people and the elements), and worsens how the community sees them.
And taking away the littlest comfort of not having to sleep on the cold floor next to the bench solves this how?
A little thought experiment, since you’re having trouble following what should be a self evident line: would you rather sleep in your bed or on the floor, if you were forced to choose? Now if I swap your bed with a bench?
Obviously a bench is better than the ground, but what I’m saying is a system that gives you some form of shelter is better than both. Even if that’s a tent and a space heater, or a room in a shelter (which I know can be problematic in their own way).
Thankfully, people are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. Removing hostile architecture doesn’t stop you from campaigning for better policies nor from organizing a leftwing bloc.
That is not the system that exists. The system that exists tries to rob you of your last bit of dignity by denying you even this little bit of comfort. So, staying in the system that actually exists in reality, are you still against removing those bars?
I’m not in favor of adding the bars in the first place, but just removing the bars individually is setting some homeless person up for trouble. I’ve seen cops hassle guys for collecting cans, when they sleep on the bench that used to have a bar those cops are going to take it on the homeless.
I’m saying advocate to change the system. Advocate to remove the bars, advocate for better shelters for the homeless than a bench.
Supporting systems that provide shelter is good. Removing the middle bar is also good. You don’t have to choose one or the other. You can do both. There is no dichotomy. Your previous comment dismissed removing the bars because there’s other, better things you could do. That’s a false dichotomy because you aren’t limited to one or the other. You’re an asshole for resorting to ad hominem and a dumbass for failing to understand their argument.
The only effective thing to do is get parties voted that enable general social safety. In countries where people don’t starve when they don’t have a job criminality is much lower.
The American public generally supports the kinds of policies we see in “good socialist” countries like the Netherlands, but our voting and representation system has locked in a right and far-right party. We’re going to have to get Approval Voting and Proportional Representation installed via referendum if we want the elected officials to actually represent the will of the people.
I agree, there’s a balance. I don’t think criminalizing homelessness is a good policy, but I also don’t like situations I’ve seen where homeless people take over parks, block sidewalks, or turn a whole street into a ghetto hellhole with burnt out abandoned RVs and trash. I understand these people are in dire straits but it’s not fair to deny everyone else use of public spaces like parks. A group of 20-25 people basically occupied a park near where I live in Denver for two weeks until the city finally kicked them out - ringed it with RVs, broken down cars, trash and debris, people sleeping on picnic tables, noise and commotion at night, open drug and alcohol use. Another thing is that wouldn’t have been tolerated in the higher income areas of the city for even one day, and it is blatantly against park usage laws. I also know people who had situations like a group of random transients came and built a tent shanty directly behind their house in the alley, blocking their gate and parking area, doing a bunch of shady shit with bikes and making noise all night, and the city/police response was “well you should talk to them and ask them to leave”.
It’s amazing to me that the US is at the point where we have shanty towns taking over public areas. Unfortunately, our current solutions are an awful in-between where cities tolerate encampments for a while, then do a “sweep” where they clean the area off, kick everyone out and throw away possessions if people don’t remove them first. Then the people who had been living there just go to a different area of the city and nothing is every really solved.
Yes, I don’t want to not help the homeless, helping them resolves most of the issues with them.
But I don’t like having run ins with them anymore. I don’t like going to parks where they hangout, I don’t like having to step over them on the sidewalk, and I’m very happy I no longer work downtown where I was accosted by them regularly. I assume if they had a safer place to they would mostly choose to be there, which is why I try to donate money.
Those types of programs are a minimum bar to do so that we can all have nice things and spaces.
I’m not sure if you’re referring to me or OP in your comment, but I have never worked with the homeless, I just worked at a place a block over from a shelter.
They sound exactly the same to me, except “unhoused” sounds like a PR term trying to clean up the word homeless, but they both bring up exactly the same images to me.
Removed by mod
And taking away the littlest comfort of not having to sleep on the cold floor next to the bench solves this how?
It doesn’t, providing spaces for them and working on improving access to help does.
How is letting them sleep on benches helping them?
A little thought experiment, since you’re having trouble following what should be a self evident line: would you rather sleep in your bed or on the floor, if you were forced to choose? Now if I swap your bed with a bench?
Obviously a bench is better than the ground, but what I’m saying is a system that gives you some form of shelter is better than both. Even if that’s a tent and a space heater, or a room in a shelter (which I know can be problematic in their own way).
Thankfully, people are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. Removing hostile architecture doesn’t stop you from campaigning for better policies nor from organizing a leftwing bloc.
That is not the system that exists. The system that exists tries to rob you of your last bit of dignity by denying you even this little bit of comfort. So, staying in the system that actually exists in reality, are you still against removing those bars?
I’m not in favor of adding the bars in the first place, but just removing the bars individually is setting some homeless person up for trouble. I’ve seen cops hassle guys for collecting cans, when they sleep on the bench that used to have a bar those cops are going to take it on the homeless.
I’m saying advocate to change the system. Advocate to remove the bars, advocate for better shelters for the homeless than a bench.
You’re providing a false dichotomy. Those aren’t the options available.
I’m not providing a false dichotomy because no dichotomy exists, my illiterate friend.
Supporting systems that provide shelter is good. Removing the middle bar is also good. You don’t have to choose one or the other. You can do both. There is no dichotomy. Your previous comment dismissed removing the bars because there’s other, better things you could do. That’s a false dichotomy because you aren’t limited to one or the other. You’re an asshole for resorting to ad hominem and a dumbass for failing to understand their argument.
The only effective thing to do is get parties voted that enable general social safety. In countries where people don’t starve when they don’t have a job criminality is much lower.
The American public generally supports the kinds of policies we see in “good socialist” countries like the Netherlands, but our voting and representation system has locked in a right and far-right party. We’re going to have to get Approval Voting and Proportional Representation installed via referendum if we want the elected officials to actually represent the will of the people.
Removed by mod
I agree, there’s a balance. I don’t think criminalizing homelessness is a good policy, but I also don’t like situations I’ve seen where homeless people take over parks, block sidewalks, or turn a whole street into a ghetto hellhole with burnt out abandoned RVs and trash. I understand these people are in dire straits but it’s not fair to deny everyone else use of public spaces like parks. A group of 20-25 people basically occupied a park near where I live in Denver for two weeks until the city finally kicked them out - ringed it with RVs, broken down cars, trash and debris, people sleeping on picnic tables, noise and commotion at night, open drug and alcohol use. Another thing is that wouldn’t have been tolerated in the higher income areas of the city for even one day, and it is blatantly against park usage laws. I also know people who had situations like a group of random transients came and built a tent shanty directly behind their house in the alley, blocking their gate and parking area, doing a bunch of shady shit with bikes and making noise all night, and the city/police response was “well you should talk to them and ask them to leave”.
It’s amazing to me that the US is at the point where we have shanty towns taking over public areas. Unfortunately, our current solutions are an awful in-between where cities tolerate encampments for a while, then do a “sweep” where they clean the area off, kick everyone out and throw away possessions if people don’t remove them first. Then the people who had been living there just go to a different area of the city and nothing is every really solved.
Yes, I don’t want to not help the homeless, helping them resolves most of the issues with them.
But I don’t like having run ins with them anymore. I don’t like going to parks where they hangout, I don’t like having to step over them on the sidewalk, and I’m very happy I no longer work downtown where I was accosted by them regularly. I assume if they had a safer place to they would mostly choose to be there, which is why I try to donate money.
Those types of programs are a minimum bar to do so that we can all have nice things and spaces.
Jesus, the mods here are silly…
Notice this guy worked in that field and still refers to them as homeless?
Calling them “uNhOuSEd” is important only in the minds of those who want to try to seem morally superior. See also - LatinX
Homeless people couldn’t give a single fuck about how someone refers to them
Source - was uNhOuSEd once
I’m not sure if you’re referring to me or OP in your comment, but I have never worked with the homeless, I just worked at a place a block over from a shelter.
They sound exactly the same to me, except “unhoused” sounds like a PR term trying to clean up the word homeless, but they both bring up exactly the same images to me.
Yeah I wasn’t referring to you, but I misread your comment and thought you worked with them
The sentiment is unchanged though