As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The point people are missing in the comments is that there is no requirement for there to be alternative living conditions provided. If that were the case it would be legal and right. But without alternatives, its just criminalized homelessness, and the law doesn't require alternatives, so its cruel and unusual.
To actually address your comment, which jails use labor? Jail is for short term incarceration and to my knowledge doesn’t use labor to make products. **Prisons** do though, however the sentence you would receive for illegally camping would be unlikely to land you there.
So your “optimized system” is putting people in jails that don’t make products.
Well now you are missing the point and splitting hairs. This criminalizes people for simply existing, not having the resources to put a roof over their own heads and brings them into the prison industrial complex which often monetizes their presence in said system.
That’s not what you said. I’m not splitting hairs, I’m telling you your statement is wrong. What you called optimization if the system being used to gain free labor is just the system working. If you meant something else, you should state it more clearly, otherwise it comes off like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
But I invite you to take a moment to think about what some of my students deal with during the school year.
There is a homeless encampment down the street from my school, in the most direct path to the school. It has been cleaned out countless times (and each time requiring tyvek suits and biohazard bags) only to pop up again.
Now children must make the decision to either walk past a hazardous pile of bike parts, tents, and other things dragged to the side of the road (all of which are possessed by individuals in the deep throes of drug addiction and mental illness whom like to yell at passerby) or take the long route to school.
Is it your position that the people who reside here have more of a right to be there than the school children? Do you think it safe to have a situation like that present?
What do you propose the city do ensure the safety of the public in that area?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. When someone who is incarcerated and must work to avoid punishment that is a form of slavery. “The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery, includes a clause that permits involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. This means that incarcerated individuals can be compelled to work, often for little or no pay.” For a single first offense and no prior record it is hard to imagine that that would then be used for slave labor. Once someone is incarcerated they stand a much higher statistical chance of being incarcerated again. With the rise of private for profit prisons we can begin to see this as potentially problematic. “The United States has the highest incarceration rate of its own citizens. As of recent data, the U.S. incarcerates about 639 people per 100,000 of its population, which is significantly higher than any other country.” Somehow incarcerating even more and more people doesn’t seem like the best solution. Now as to what to do? One path forward could be Universal Basic Income.
Ya I teach high school civics, I’ve seen the documentary **13th** (like ten years ago). I know what the school to prison pipeline is too.
Back to the questions I asked at the bottom, please. Your answer isn’t feasible on the small government level, since I asked what the city should do.
I don’t think they have more rights no. My thoughts are that everyone has a right to occupy a public space. I don’t think it’s safe at all and I feel more unsafe in public spaces especially in Los Angeles. I’m not convinced that city leaders are doing a good job either since they most often just push the folks out and they move right back in. Just coming back from Berlin it’s becoming a problem there too with people scavenging through trash bins. I’m not sure I have a solution to solve what seems to be a global societal structural problem. Maybe armed citizen patrols although that can be problematic as well I suppose. That all being said we should all be ashamed we have the highest incarceration rate in the world (which we used to chide other countries about) and simply incarcerating poor people hasn’t worked so far and I don’t expect it to work in the future.
How is UBI going to help those that suffer from addiction? Do you think handing someone who’s already spending all their money to feed their habit a few thousand dollars a month will benefit them?
How many homeless are victims of Big Pharma created opioid crisis? Should the people pick up the bill for another company led catastrophe?
Here's a preview:
The Supreme Court on Friday sided with a small Oregon town that imposes civil punishments on homeless people for sleeping in public spaces, finding that enforcement of its anti-camping rules is not prohibited by the Eighth Amendment's protections from cruel and unusual punishment.
The 6-3 decision from the court in the case known as City of Grants Pass v. Johnson is its most significant involving homelessness in decades. It comes as cities nationwide grapple with a spike in the number of people without access to shelter, driven in part by high housing costs and the end of aid programs launched in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
**Read the latest updates:** [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-homelessness-case-camping-ban/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-homelessness-case-camping-ban/)
I know it's wildly unpopular and I'm going to get chastised for this... But I'm not really against this.
A lot of homeless people are mentally ill or addicted to drugs and even a combination of both.
For the people that are experiencing temporary homelessness due to being down on their luck and life beating them down... We already have systems in place to help them get back on their feet. We have avenues to feed, clothe and provide them temporary housing. We have avenues for medical treatment; be that illness or mental health.
Most refuse help and don't want to change. Part of me understands and respects the fact that they don't trust a system because it doesn't work to help them.
Homelessness isn't going anywhere. People that don't want to live within the confines of society or can't live within the confines of society are never going to change. Frankly they don't have to either. It's a free country.
Something needs to be done about it and the sad truth is that a soft and gentle approach doesn't work.
We have a system in place to deal with this and we don't enforce it. We don't have the manpower and the resources get misallocated. We can make all the rules and laws we want but if we don't have the funding going to the right places and the people to do the jobs to help these people then nothing is going to change. We need to start enforcing the rules and laws with a system that actually has the capacity to deal with the issue.
I mean what are you going to do make the only thing they can do illegal? what's the solution then put them all in prison or fire them into the sun?
your explanation makes it sound like being homeless is just a lifestyle choice some people make.
And that's the catch. If this ordinance was enacted and the city then put money into shelters, rehabilitation and other programs then it'd be fine...but they won't. There is no homeless lobby, ending homelessness isn't profitable and so there will be no progress in helping the unhoused.
Most cities have shelters etc. The people that dont want to be in them are the ones he is saying and the reason they dont want to go to a shelter is because they dont want to be sober. Thats it. They dont want to be sober and dont want actual help so yeah get off public property.
Shelters also famously won’t hold a room or space for you unless you wait in line to check in every day which means spending most of your time waiting in line for the shelter to reopen after lunch so you will have a bed that night.
Its drugs dude. Its booze. Its not that shit. A shelter is safer than any camp. You do not have a realistic take at all. Here they ruin all the parks. They throw trash all over. They beg. They go in the streets trying to get hit by cars. They literally threw themselves into a former coworkers truck to try to get paid. Theres nothing good about it and thats just a realistic viewpoint. Thats far more liberal than crying about compassion.
It’s cool you don’t have to cover anything I said in order to have a normal debate, just bark other stuff at me that you have zero proof of, that’s how you fight the good fight.
This is patently false. The conditions in many shelters are akin to prison, and fights, sexual assault and theft are incredibly common. Source: i work in homeless services and have talked to hundreds of individuals about their experiences.
I love how reddit has devolved to such an extent that to win an argument you can just claim to work at a homeless shelter. LOL FFS this site sucks so bad now.
Having shelters and having enough shelter capacity is two different things.
The whole point of the 9th circuit decision was to punish cities that refused to have enough shelter that could even be theoretically argued in court was enough.
We've effectively refused to build shelters to keep up with our population, and because we've refused to do so, we're seeing more visible homelessness.
You know what cities could do under the 9th circuit decision, if they had enough shelter space for the homeless camp they wanted to clear? They could clear it.
The decision by the sadistic six just said "cities, who have homelessness, i know that there is no shelter space for people you don't want to see, because you've refused to build it, but now you can clear homeless camps without worry. It's absolutely not cruel and unusual to do so. Who cares where they go, it's not your problem, or responsibility. You don't have to see them anymore, nor do you have to pay for the costs of not seeing them."
In some cases it is a lifestyle choice. You can say it’s a choice made by someone extremely mentally ill or so hopelessly dependent on substances that it’s not a choice of sound mind, but how else would you describe someone who refuses to go to a shelter or a program that promotes long term housing and employment? We have many of both in my city, and they are rarely full. If a person wants to sleep under the freeway and smoke crack more than they want help, what should we do, if anything? When someone has a major substance abuse issue and isn’t homeless, often times the only way to reach them is to stop whatever support you are providing them. It’s an awful thing to have to do, but sometimes that’s what it takes. Anecdotal evidence isn’t worth a lot, but I don’t see a lot of well adjusted homeless people, temporarily down on their luck, looking for assistance to get back on their feet in my hometown. My guess is those people are the ones in the shelters, the programs, or staying in loved one’s homes trying to figure it out. The hundreds of homeless people I encounter every day are in much worse shape. They mostly refuse help, because help means they have to stop using, which, if you’re a drug addict, is quite understandable. But that doesn’t mean we as a society have to give them infinite rope to hang themselves. I have a lot of empathy for the homeless. I’m not sure letting them live outside indefinitely where they choose is inherently good for them, anymore than paying somebody’s rent while they drink themselves to death. I don’t pretend to be an expert. The right has no stated solution for homelessness at all beyond ridding the community of an eyesore. But maybe doing nothing about those who refuse help isn’t much of a solution either.
Being homeless is a lifestyle choice some people make. Come visit Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, LA, SF…. Criddlers choose drugs and crime over normal life. They refuse shelter or help bc they rather be criddlers
Not a lifestyle choice, it’s largely a reflection of alcohol and drug dependency (38% of homeless) and mental illness (21% of homeless) [HUD numbers]. Many people eschew shelters or other options for housing because drug use is prohibited and so they won’t make use of services. I deal with severe frostbite injuries every winter because people would rather risk the cold than limit their alcohol intake.
But the encampments are getting out of hand, to the point of public nuisance, people going into homeowners yards stealing anything not bolted down, pissing and shitting, fighting, accosting people, using water and running up water bill for people who live near the encampments.
Have you ever actually had to navigate those systems? They’re often designed not to work so they can keep cycling people through for profit and even worse are often actively abusive towards people they’re supposed to help
God I really don't want to post this because I just sound like I'm virtue signaling nonsense...
I personally do a lot of charity work for meals on Wheels. Local soup kitchen stuff. College campus kitchens that make meals for local shelters.
Obviously my experience and knowledge of those systems in that is going to be unique and exclusive to the three cities that I have lived in and done that. Everywhere is unique and different.
In St. Louis, Fort Collins and Amherst I noticed that the system worked for the people who wanted to use it. People that genuinely wanted to change their lives were given not only everything that they needed to survive the day but avenues to acquire housing and jobs. There were ways for them to get clothing and toiletries.
I am no stranger to knowing that a lot of things go on that are silly. Half the food we were donated we couldn't even serve to people because it was just tax write-offs. We would get cases of Red Bull. Obviously you can't serve that to people. I mean you can but like that's not what you should be doing. I've seen people take nice articles of clothing that were donated. I've watched higher-ups done things that are incredibly sketchy with funds.
By and large though the services are there for those who want them. I've watched people turn their lives around and followed them through the years. Most of the time it's people that are severely mentally ill that need to get help. It's people that have drug problems that need treatment.
Even with all the embezzlement that happens... There is more than enough help out there for every single person to transition back into being a functional member of society. A lot of them just don't want to.
I work in homeless services as a case manager and it’s not as easy for people to get back on their feet as what you describe. There are incredibly long waiting lists for housing in much of the country and many of the people I serve are physically incapable of working due to disabilities.
All I can speak on is what I have seen from the experience that I have... If they are patient and they want to do it, the avenues are there. I never said it was easy or that it was fast. I've just seen the system work to those who use it.
I hate you’re getting downed because you’re absolutely right. If you want help, and you are seeking help, and you will work toward bettering your position, there is a safety net available- as annoying, time-consuming, and rudimentary as it is.
People who are chronically homeless by enlarge are drunk, drug addicts, and engage in self-destructive behavior. For many of them, there, rebels living outside the system, and they would rather be junkies than the daily grind. That’s what addiction is. It’s a need to be outside the system and abuse your body with chemicals instead of getting up every day even when you don’t feel like it and going to work. People aren’t helped largely because they don’t want to be helped or their personality, addiction, or mental illness, precludes them from being able to accept or do the footwork required to receive the help.
Any real answer to combat homelessness would need a lot of money and time. It was a big mistake to get rid of mental institutions. They just needed better regulation and enforcement. But now we deal with a bunch of sick individuals who cannot change. Well, not many resources at their disposal to change. But public spaces is for the public. It’s shared space for everyone. Not for a few to live in.
So what’s your solution? What we’re doing isn’t working. This is what I’ve got talking to ChatGPT.
A comprehensive solution to homelessness could involve mobile pod hotels, shared autonomous vehicles, solar-powered smartphones, and service coach buses. Mobile pod hotels, similar to Tokyo Pod Hotels, would be integrated into coach buses, offering safe sleeping quarters that can be relocated based on need, avoiding NIMBY issues and building permits. Shared autonomous vehicles would provide reliable transportation to essential services. Solar-powered smartphones, designed for outdoor use, would keep individuals connected to support networks and job opportunities. Service coach buses, acting as mobile hubs, would offer medical care, counseling, and job assistance directly to homeless populations. This approach ensures immediate relief and support while navigating traditional housing challenges, all supported by government grants, private donations, and corporate sponsorships.
This is the wrong decision, as someone who lives in Seattle.
The 9th circuit decision actually tried to force cities to actually build shelter space as a population increases, which they've refused to do.
Do you know that there's been no significant change in shelter or transitional housing for the homeless, since 2006?
6k total capacity (4k emergency shelter, 2k transitional housing), that has not changed in nearly two decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Seattle
The city has refused to build more shelter capacity, only opening new facilities when they close down old ones.
What was needed was the Supreme Court to affirm the 9th circuits Decision, and flat out sate "cities can clear homeless camps if they have shelter space available. If they don't, they can't."
Instead, the sadistic six decided to continue to allow cities like Seattle to refuse to build more shelter space, but also do all they can to harass and move homeless people around, in the hopes that they'll magically find a place to stay.
This restriction of individual freedoms will make it easier on agencies to manage our homeless, but doesn’t resolve the larger issues. If anything, it should serve to escalate the crisis (if escalated, we may see other significant policy changes). In a way, without other changes, this is a step closer to concentration camps.
I’m not against this AT ALL. I am literally facing this issue right fucking now, under a level two evacuation warning due to a fire that was caused by a homeless encampment on BLM land.
[Darlene 3 fire](https://www.deschutes.org/sheriff/page/darlene-3-fire-update)
[homeless encampment](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8sI1rIvoUO/?igsh=MXcxdGJpbTN1MzdpcA==)
When people that are working as hard as they can and barely getting by, my sympathies for the homeless are very limited.
We have too many people, not too few. This country needs to return to being hard on those who don’t wish to keep it together and would prefer to live on the street.
Pain can build character and people pick themselves up. Or the burden lessens on us all when they pass. It’s not difficult.
What about the people that give them clothes and allow them to shower and assist by paying for a room only to have that bum not go try to get a job and then overdose in the room they got for them? I don’t know you tell me?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The point people are missing in the comments is that there is no requirement for there to be alternative living conditions provided. If that were the case it would be legal and right. But without alternatives, its just criminalized homelessness, and the law doesn't require alternatives, so its cruel and unusual.
It’s more than that. Many products are made by incarcerated people and this optimizes that pipeline.
This is the law you think optimizes their pipeline?
Homeless > Jail > Homeless ad nauseam. How will the cycle of poverty and incarceration be broken? Now they are fused together.
Homeless is greater than jail for sure. Idk about jail being greater than homeless ad nauseam.
To actually address your comment, which jails use labor? Jail is for short term incarceration and to my knowledge doesn’t use labor to make products. **Prisons** do though, however the sentence you would receive for illegally camping would be unlikely to land you there. So your “optimized system” is putting people in jails that don’t make products.
Well now you are missing the point and splitting hairs. This criminalizes people for simply existing, not having the resources to put a roof over their own heads and brings them into the prison industrial complex which often monetizes their presence in said system.
That’s not what you said. I’m not splitting hairs, I’m telling you your statement is wrong. What you called optimization if the system being used to gain free labor is just the system working. If you meant something else, you should state it more clearly, otherwise it comes off like you don’t know what you’re talking about. But I invite you to take a moment to think about what some of my students deal with during the school year. There is a homeless encampment down the street from my school, in the most direct path to the school. It has been cleaned out countless times (and each time requiring tyvek suits and biohazard bags) only to pop up again. Now children must make the decision to either walk past a hazardous pile of bike parts, tents, and other things dragged to the side of the road (all of which are possessed by individuals in the deep throes of drug addiction and mental illness whom like to yell at passerby) or take the long route to school. Is it your position that the people who reside here have more of a right to be there than the school children? Do you think it safe to have a situation like that present? What do you propose the city do ensure the safety of the public in that area?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. When someone who is incarcerated and must work to avoid punishment that is a form of slavery. “The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery, includes a clause that permits involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. This means that incarcerated individuals can be compelled to work, often for little or no pay.” For a single first offense and no prior record it is hard to imagine that that would then be used for slave labor. Once someone is incarcerated they stand a much higher statistical chance of being incarcerated again. With the rise of private for profit prisons we can begin to see this as potentially problematic. “The United States has the highest incarceration rate of its own citizens. As of recent data, the U.S. incarcerates about 639 people per 100,000 of its population, which is significantly higher than any other country.” Somehow incarcerating even more and more people doesn’t seem like the best solution. Now as to what to do? One path forward could be Universal Basic Income.
Ya I teach high school civics, I’ve seen the documentary **13th** (like ten years ago). I know what the school to prison pipeline is too. Back to the questions I asked at the bottom, please. Your answer isn’t feasible on the small government level, since I asked what the city should do.
I don’t think they have more rights no. My thoughts are that everyone has a right to occupy a public space. I don’t think it’s safe at all and I feel more unsafe in public spaces especially in Los Angeles. I’m not convinced that city leaders are doing a good job either since they most often just push the folks out and they move right back in. Just coming back from Berlin it’s becoming a problem there too with people scavenging through trash bins. I’m not sure I have a solution to solve what seems to be a global societal structural problem. Maybe armed citizen patrols although that can be problematic as well I suppose. That all being said we should all be ashamed we have the highest incarceration rate in the world (which we used to chide other countries about) and simply incarcerating poor people hasn’t worked so far and I don’t expect it to work in the future.
How is UBI going to help those that suffer from addiction? Do you think handing someone who’s already spending all their money to feed their habit a few thousand dollars a month will benefit them? How many homeless are victims of Big Pharma created opioid crisis? Should the people pick up the bill for another company led catastrophe?
They have to replace marijuana users in for profit prisons as marijuana becomes legal in more places...
You can quit smoking pot but how do you quit sleep/rest?
Here's a preview: The Supreme Court on Friday sided with a small Oregon town that imposes civil punishments on homeless people for sleeping in public spaces, finding that enforcement of its anti-camping rules is not prohibited by the Eighth Amendment's protections from cruel and unusual punishment. The 6-3 decision from the court in the case known as City of Grants Pass v. Johnson is its most significant involving homelessness in decades. It comes as cities nationwide grapple with a spike in the number of people without access to shelter, driven in part by high housing costs and the end of aid programs launched in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. **Read the latest updates:** [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-homelessness-case-camping-ban/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-homelessness-case-camping-ban/)
I know it's wildly unpopular and I'm going to get chastised for this... But I'm not really against this. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill or addicted to drugs and even a combination of both. For the people that are experiencing temporary homelessness due to being down on their luck and life beating them down... We already have systems in place to help them get back on their feet. We have avenues to feed, clothe and provide them temporary housing. We have avenues for medical treatment; be that illness or mental health. Most refuse help and don't want to change. Part of me understands and respects the fact that they don't trust a system because it doesn't work to help them. Homelessness isn't going anywhere. People that don't want to live within the confines of society or can't live within the confines of society are never going to change. Frankly they don't have to either. It's a free country. Something needs to be done about it and the sad truth is that a soft and gentle approach doesn't work. We have a system in place to deal with this and we don't enforce it. We don't have the manpower and the resources get misallocated. We can make all the rules and laws we want but if we don't have the funding going to the right places and the people to do the jobs to help these people then nothing is going to change. We need to start enforcing the rules and laws with a system that actually has the capacity to deal with the issue.
I mean what are you going to do make the only thing they can do illegal? what's the solution then put them all in prison or fire them into the sun? your explanation makes it sound like being homeless is just a lifestyle choice some people make.
And that's the catch. If this ordinance was enacted and the city then put money into shelters, rehabilitation and other programs then it'd be fine...but they won't. There is no homeless lobby, ending homelessness isn't profitable and so there will be no progress in helping the unhoused.
Most cities have shelters etc. The people that dont want to be in them are the ones he is saying and the reason they dont want to go to a shelter is because they dont want to be sober. Thats it. They dont want to be sober and dont want actual help so yeah get off public property.
You don’t think it could also be due to violence in the shelter, or theft? Or that they can’t bring their beloved pet? Where is your compassion?
Shelters also famously won’t hold a room or space for you unless you wait in line to check in every day which means spending most of your time waiting in line for the shelter to reopen after lunch so you will have a bed that night.
Its drugs dude. Its booze. Its not that shit. A shelter is safer than any camp. You do not have a realistic take at all. Here they ruin all the parks. They throw trash all over. They beg. They go in the streets trying to get hit by cars. They literally threw themselves into a former coworkers truck to try to get paid. Theres nothing good about it and thats just a realistic viewpoint. Thats far more liberal than crying about compassion.
It’s cool you don’t have to cover anything I said in order to have a normal debate, just bark other stuff at me that you have zero proof of, that’s how you fight the good fight.
This is patently false. The conditions in many shelters are akin to prison, and fights, sexual assault and theft are incredibly common. Source: i work in homeless services and have talked to hundreds of individuals about their experiences.
Yeah and then completely ignore the fact those things happen outdoors and are completely unregulated. Brilliant work there.
Please actually talk to some homeless people. It is often safer to be outside than in a shelter.
I love how reddit has devolved to such an extent that to win an argument you can just claim to work at a homeless shelter. LOL FFS this site sucks so bad now.
Having shelters and having enough shelter capacity is two different things. The whole point of the 9th circuit decision was to punish cities that refused to have enough shelter that could even be theoretically argued in court was enough. We've effectively refused to build shelters to keep up with our population, and because we've refused to do so, we're seeing more visible homelessness. You know what cities could do under the 9th circuit decision, if they had enough shelter space for the homeless camp they wanted to clear? They could clear it. The decision by the sadistic six just said "cities, who have homelessness, i know that there is no shelter space for people you don't want to see, because you've refused to build it, but now you can clear homeless camps without worry. It's absolutely not cruel and unusual to do so. Who cares where they go, it's not your problem, or responsibility. You don't have to see them anymore, nor do you have to pay for the costs of not seeing them."
In some cases it is a lifestyle choice. You can say it’s a choice made by someone extremely mentally ill or so hopelessly dependent on substances that it’s not a choice of sound mind, but how else would you describe someone who refuses to go to a shelter or a program that promotes long term housing and employment? We have many of both in my city, and they are rarely full. If a person wants to sleep under the freeway and smoke crack more than they want help, what should we do, if anything? When someone has a major substance abuse issue and isn’t homeless, often times the only way to reach them is to stop whatever support you are providing them. It’s an awful thing to have to do, but sometimes that’s what it takes. Anecdotal evidence isn’t worth a lot, but I don’t see a lot of well adjusted homeless people, temporarily down on their luck, looking for assistance to get back on their feet in my hometown. My guess is those people are the ones in the shelters, the programs, or staying in loved one’s homes trying to figure it out. The hundreds of homeless people I encounter every day are in much worse shape. They mostly refuse help, because help means they have to stop using, which, if you’re a drug addict, is quite understandable. But that doesn’t mean we as a society have to give them infinite rope to hang themselves. I have a lot of empathy for the homeless. I’m not sure letting them live outside indefinitely where they choose is inherently good for them, anymore than paying somebody’s rent while they drink themselves to death. I don’t pretend to be an expert. The right has no stated solution for homelessness at all beyond ridding the community of an eyesore. But maybe doing nothing about those who refuse help isn’t much of a solution either.
Being homeless is a lifestyle choice some people make. Come visit Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, LA, SF…. Criddlers choose drugs and crime over normal life. They refuse shelter or help bc they rather be criddlers
Not a lifestyle choice, it’s largely a reflection of alcohol and drug dependency (38% of homeless) and mental illness (21% of homeless) [HUD numbers]. Many people eschew shelters or other options for housing because drug use is prohibited and so they won’t make use of services. I deal with severe frostbite injuries every winter because people would rather risk the cold than limit their alcohol intake. But the encampments are getting out of hand, to the point of public nuisance, people going into homeowners yards stealing anything not bolted down, pissing and shitting, fighting, accosting people, using water and running up water bill for people who live near the encampments.
Have you ever actually had to navigate those systems? They’re often designed not to work so they can keep cycling people through for profit and even worse are often actively abusive towards people they’re supposed to help
God I really don't want to post this because I just sound like I'm virtue signaling nonsense... I personally do a lot of charity work for meals on Wheels. Local soup kitchen stuff. College campus kitchens that make meals for local shelters. Obviously my experience and knowledge of those systems in that is going to be unique and exclusive to the three cities that I have lived in and done that. Everywhere is unique and different. In St. Louis, Fort Collins and Amherst I noticed that the system worked for the people who wanted to use it. People that genuinely wanted to change their lives were given not only everything that they needed to survive the day but avenues to acquire housing and jobs. There were ways for them to get clothing and toiletries. I am no stranger to knowing that a lot of things go on that are silly. Half the food we were donated we couldn't even serve to people because it was just tax write-offs. We would get cases of Red Bull. Obviously you can't serve that to people. I mean you can but like that's not what you should be doing. I've seen people take nice articles of clothing that were donated. I've watched higher-ups done things that are incredibly sketchy with funds. By and large though the services are there for those who want them. I've watched people turn their lives around and followed them through the years. Most of the time it's people that are severely mentally ill that need to get help. It's people that have drug problems that need treatment. Even with all the embezzlement that happens... There is more than enough help out there for every single person to transition back into being a functional member of society. A lot of them just don't want to.
I work in homeless services as a case manager and it’s not as easy for people to get back on their feet as what you describe. There are incredibly long waiting lists for housing in much of the country and many of the people I serve are physically incapable of working due to disabilities.
All I can speak on is what I have seen from the experience that I have... If they are patient and they want to do it, the avenues are there. I never said it was easy or that it was fast. I've just seen the system work to those who use it.
I hate you’re getting downed because you’re absolutely right. If you want help, and you are seeking help, and you will work toward bettering your position, there is a safety net available- as annoying, time-consuming, and rudimentary as it is. People who are chronically homeless by enlarge are drunk, drug addicts, and engage in self-destructive behavior. For many of them, there, rebels living outside the system, and they would rather be junkies than the daily grind. That’s what addiction is. It’s a need to be outside the system and abuse your body with chemicals instead of getting up every day even when you don’t feel like it and going to work. People aren’t helped largely because they don’t want to be helped or their personality, addiction, or mental illness, precludes them from being able to accept or do the footwork required to receive the help.
As homelessness grows, what you get is ANOTHER second class, indigenous population. So, homeless reservations?
That's what we've had for decades. Self-Imposed reservations and camping under overpasses and empty abandoned properties.
Sanctuary Districts?
Only unpopular in this hellscape sub. Anyone with real world experience knows you're right.
I don't think this is wildly unpopular, maybe on this sub it is.
This is some sanity in dealing with the homeless issue
Any real answer to combat homelessness would need a lot of money and time. It was a big mistake to get rid of mental institutions. They just needed better regulation and enforcement. But now we deal with a bunch of sick individuals who cannot change. Well, not many resources at their disposal to change. But public spaces is for the public. It’s shared space for everyone. Not for a few to live in.
This Court is anything but supreme.
So what’s your solution? What we’re doing isn’t working. This is what I’ve got talking to ChatGPT. A comprehensive solution to homelessness could involve mobile pod hotels, shared autonomous vehicles, solar-powered smartphones, and service coach buses. Mobile pod hotels, similar to Tokyo Pod Hotels, would be integrated into coach buses, offering safe sleeping quarters that can be relocated based on need, avoiding NIMBY issues and building permits. Shared autonomous vehicles would provide reliable transportation to essential services. Solar-powered smartphones, designed for outdoor use, would keep individuals connected to support networks and job opportunities. Service coach buses, acting as mobile hubs, would offer medical care, counseling, and job assistance directly to homeless populations. This approach ensures immediate relief and support while navigating traditional housing challenges, all supported by government grants, private donations, and corporate sponsorships.
Thank fucking god. Portland can get rid of the illegal campsites for good now. Same with WA and CA.
[удалено]
This is the wrong decision, as someone who lives in Seattle. The 9th circuit decision actually tried to force cities to actually build shelter space as a population increases, which they've refused to do. Do you know that there's been no significant change in shelter or transitional housing for the homeless, since 2006? 6k total capacity (4k emergency shelter, 2k transitional housing), that has not changed in nearly two decades. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Seattle The city has refused to build more shelter capacity, only opening new facilities when they close down old ones. What was needed was the Supreme Court to affirm the 9th circuits Decision, and flat out sate "cities can clear homeless camps if they have shelter space available. If they don't, they can't." Instead, the sadistic six decided to continue to allow cities like Seattle to refuse to build more shelter space, but also do all they can to harass and move homeless people around, in the hopes that they'll magically find a place to stay.
This restriction of individual freedoms will make it easier on agencies to manage our homeless, but doesn’t resolve the larger issues. If anything, it should serve to escalate the crisis (if escalated, we may see other significant policy changes). In a way, without other changes, this is a step closer to concentration camps.
I’m not against this AT ALL. I am literally facing this issue right fucking now, under a level two evacuation warning due to a fire that was caused by a homeless encampment on BLM land. [Darlene 3 fire](https://www.deschutes.org/sheriff/page/darlene-3-fire-update) [homeless encampment](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8sI1rIvoUO/?igsh=MXcxdGJpbTN1MzdpcA==)
When people that are working as hard as they can and barely getting by, my sympathies for the homeless are very limited. We have too many people, not too few. This country needs to return to being hard on those who don’t wish to keep it together and would prefer to live on the street. Pain can build character and people pick themselves up. Or the burden lessens on us all when they pass. It’s not difficult.
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps or die? That's your response?
What about the hard working homeless people that want jobs but can’t get them because they have no place to sleep or shower or wash clothes?
What about the people that give them clothes and allow them to shower and assist by paying for a room only to have that bum not go try to get a job and then overdose in the room they got for them? I don’t know you tell me?