Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

Post by scarmig » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 7:12 PM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #136

scarmig wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point: requiring the government to provide permanent housing that has storage units and allows pets (and alcohol, and drugs, and...) before it can take action on homelessness is not an effective approach. Temporary housing is useful, even though it might mean having to give up a dog. The fact that most of those remaining on the streets don't want it has no bearing on whether the government should b…

Say what you really mean. > before it can take action on homelessness Building the shelters is taking action. Without the shelters what exactly are you proposing to do? If there literally are no beds available, where are the homeless supposed to go in your system? That's what the supreme court pointed out. They said that if there is no place for the homeless to go, if the city hasn't done it's job, then it has no rig…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 7:32 PM UTC

evancox100 wrote: post #116

archagon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How utterly cruel. Imagine a homeless life where not only do you not have any friends or relatives to lean on, but everyone who passes you by on the street either ignores you or outright loathes you. A dog that loves you unconditionally would quite literally be a life-saver.

Imagine not letting someone build cheap housing that could keep someone sheltered with a roof over their head because of your own idiosyncratic opinions on housing style. I think letting people build the housing that people need would be 1000x the life saver compared to letting them have a dog once they're already out on the street . This is like the "let them eat cake" of homelessness policy.

Post by vidarh » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 7:35 PM UTC

evancox100 wrote: post #113

tech_ken wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree it's a problem with shelter beds, but this is exactly what you're talking about. Coercive force is useless at best unless there's something effective that you're pushing people into. Pretending like the problem is that we're not "cracking down" hard enough, or that progressives are simply averse to sufficiently coercive measures bc they're soft-hearted or whatever, only obscures the solution space…

I am not an expert on homeless shelters and the exact pros and cons. You seem to have thoughts that getting someone into a shelter would be overall net negative, which is fine for you to have that opinion. But in the context of the discussion, if we take for granted that doing X for homeless people is good, whatever X may be (e.g. moving them into a shelter, attending an AA meeting, seeing a doctor, whatever), my poi…

Post by vidarh » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

evancox100 wrote: post #126

enterprise_cog wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always amusing to me when people like you say things like that. Treat the trauma like it’s nothing. I’d love to see you get forced into a traumatic situation by the government and keep that same attitude. Just an utter lack of empathy. People like you should have no say in how a society is run.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what traumatic situations I may or may not have been in. Maybe it is because I have been through some shit that I realize sometimes we have to do "mean" things to people, sometimes for their own good but often for the good of those around them.

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 7:43 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #42

evancox100 wrote: post #20

What I don’t understand is that if making it illegal to build whatever living structure you want on public land is “cruel and unusual punishment”, why is it still illegal to build the living structure of your choice on private land that you own? Isn’t such a law even more restrictive? How have we willingly ceded so much authority to bureaucratic busybodys who have nothing better to do than micromanage the size, shape…

> What I don’t understand is that if making it illegal to build whatever living structure you want on public land is “cruel and unusual punishment”, why is it still illegal to build the living structure of your choice on private land that you own Your premise is wrong; making rhe first kind of law has not been ruled unconstitutional, only enforcing it when there is no available shelter for the homeless population .