171–180 of 184 posts
everyone acting so shocked here probably hasn’t had your home robbed, your car windows broken, or been assaulted and/or robbed by a drugged out bum. at some point enough is enough and they gotta go. i think it’s a juvenile attitude to look down your nose at the endless victims and tell them to just be more understanding of the hardships the homeless face.
Just a bunch of conservatives and liberals chilling. No logic people.
everyone acting so shocked here probably hasn’t had your home robbed, your car windows broken, or been assaulted and/or robbed by a drugged out bum. at some point enough is enough and they gotta go. i think it’s a juvenile attitude to look down your nose at the endless victims and tell them to just be more understanding of the hardships the homeless face.
This doesn't get anyone off the street, it just nudges them away from this specific building. What's juvenile is people trying to displace the problem into just slightly different part of the same neighborhood and imagining that it's accomplished anything.
You don't have to hate homeless people to not want to be around them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is being denied public services; the WiFi works for everyone during daylight hours. It's just turned off at night to discourage people from sleeping there. They close and lock the library doors too.
We have loitering laws that would then go to prevent homeless people from using those services during daylight hours. My library requires you to have a drivers license and prove you have an address within that city/town to be able to use it. So a homeless person without a DL, or who never had an address in that city would not be allowed access. And could be arrested for loitering for just existing near a library duri…
So, I live in SF, work in these libraries, and my gf lives in that immediate area, and I can be found at that library pretty frequently typing away on sublime text. As is typical with SF stories about homelessness. This article either seems misinformed about the facts on the ground, or can't seem to wrap its head around the fact that SF goes above and beyond to support the folks living on the streets here. --- Issue…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should we invest this much in our public spaces and then effectively give them away? I wouldnt want somebody sleeping next to my house so he could get WiFi. Public spaces are ours. “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.” ― Anatole France
There were a few hundred shelter beds available last night in SF to anyone who wanted to sleep indoors. The problem is the people who sleep outside the library don't want to sleep in shelter, because the shelters don't allow drug use. The people sleeping outside the library want to get high and we do not have an effective means to compel people into shelter or treatment.
I grew up in a very bad place in the UK and I knew many homeless people (different than homeless people in the US for sure, much lower propensity for mental health issues for example) but they avoided shelters because many homeless shelters aren’t safe. Any possessions you have will be stolen while you sleep. Women are molested and raped. Lice are all over. There are limited beds so giving up your "sure-fire" place in an underpass for a potential bed is not ideal.
You have to leave at 7 am and can’t return until 5pm at the earliest, and they’re first come first serve. Some shelters make you attend religious services.
Some shelters will "encourage" you to pay a fee to go to them.
It's very easy to become homeless and very difficult to get out of it (I mean, who has the finances to have 2 months rent, a deposit and enough to cover a failed background check), so it's not good to tar all homeless people with the "drug-use" brush.
it's not natural so it's not humane.
My personal space is sacred and my neighbour has no right invading it in any shape or form. I don't care if he lives 100m from me or 30cm away behind wall in the same building. it's all the same.
Also the ground under and air above from center of earth all the way up to end of atmosphere is my space, everything founded in that soil as well. If it's mine it's mine.
If I decide with milion other people to concentrate in one big spot our sky will be free from artificial crap obscuring free natural sky view. Your globalist collectivist agenda is completely irrelevant to me.
And if you cross our sky we have full right to get your crap out of our sight in self defense by any means we decide to use.
Clear borders and agreed rights keep everyone more happy and more free.
If people want to kill themselves slowly, poison themselves, test any new fake things on themselves let them.
But keep them away from those who want to live the whole naturally designed length of time that we were given being born on this planet from nature. And if you shorten my life I get right to shorten yours, what's only fair but creates a never ending cycle on enmity and incompatibility.
Also city is not natural human growth environment.. but that's another topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In NYC the DHS intakes and beds 60,000 homeless people _every single night_. To say that there aren't solutions in place is incorrect. At least in NYC, the folks you see sleeping on sidewalks have broadly chosen that position over a bed in a shelter. It's a point of pride for many New Yorkers that if you're homeless and willing to get clean, the city will provide a bed for you every night. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/…
> In NYC the DHS intakes and beds 60,000 homeless people _every single night_. I interpreted parent's use of the term "solution" quite differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In NYC the DHS intakes and beds 60,000 homeless people _every single night_. To say that there aren't solutions in place is incorrect. At least in NYC, the folks you see sleeping on sidewalks have broadly chosen that position over a bed in a shelter. It's a point of pride for many New Yorkers that if you're homeless and willing to get clean, the city will provide a bed for you every night. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/…
How does that compare to say, Boise, where the city was recently sued because they enacted criminal ordinances that said it was an offense to sleep on the street if a shelter bed was available? Sounds reasonable. Then you hear the nuance. A shelter bed was always "available" because one religious shelter would say that one was always "available" even if it didn't in fact exist, and in order to stay there, even if it…
I think the Boise example is probably a good case of generally well-meaning but ideologically driven folks using their city's homeless as a means to promote their views. I imagine if you surveyed most Americans, they'd agree that forcing someone to go to religious events in exchange for a bed is completely inhumane and idiotic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In NYC the DHS intakes and beds 60,000 homeless people _every single night_. To say that there aren't solutions in place is incorrect. At least in NYC, the folks you see sleeping on sidewalks have broadly chosen that position over a bed in a shelter. It's a point of pride for many New Yorkers that if you're homeless and willing to get clean, the city will provide a bed for you every night. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/…
> It's a point of pride for many New Yorkers that if you're homeless and willing to get clean, the city will provide a bed for you every night. And if you don't want to get clean, just go to San Francisco? At least you can sleep outside in any season without dying.
Fentanyl, meth, and alcohol are some of the most brutal drugs to detox from, and tragically, they're also some of the cheapest and most available for homeless people. I hope my previous comment didn't make it seem like I view getting clean as a simple task, it's actually one of the hardest things to ask a person to do, but after years of spending time with addicts both at all stages of recovery, I think it's the only path back to regular life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think many people just want to fuck over homeless people, I think they don’t perceive these programs are effective—they don’t perceive the desired inverse correlation between increase in social spending and reduction in homelessness/poverty (possibly because they’re told by parties with malicious interests that these programs aren’t effective).
It's easy to notice a homeless person. It's a helluva lot harder to notice a person who used to be homeless.