Who are most of the cities and counties going to utilize to conduct any sweep, any action they direct at a homeless person or homeless community? Cops. What will a non-zero number of those cops...
Who are most of the cities and counties going to utilize to conduct any sweep, any action they direct at a homeless person or homeless community? Cops. What will a non-zero number of those cops do? Assault, brutalize, and in some cases cripple or kill those homeless persons.
If Gavin's order directed California municipalities to make social and case workers available, directed those trained individuals and agencies to be the first, second, even third points of contact in this "removal" of homeless communities maybe there'd be some level of non-evil morality involved.
But no, all because our society is content to use people up and throw them away, some folks who are already getting the shit end of the stick will end up injured or dead. Simply due to how people don't like being reminded of how uncaring and indifferent so many of us are to the fact that some folks are allowed to be treated as subhuman simply due to poverty.
ps: The fact that some homeless individuals have mental or addiction issues doesn't change the math here. Some folks do have real and serious issues, unrelated to only poverty, that lead to their homelessness, and that sometimes further cause them to resist "help" that might or might not be available. That's a complicating issue with poverty that leads to homelessness, but doesn't change that people are going to die as cops are let off the leash to go do the dirty, do what even Gavin with his heartless order refuses to openly admit he wants done.
Thanks SCOTUS! Nice to know it's legal to execute people simply for not being good cogs in the capitalist machinery. Remain calm citizens, this is normal and will all be over as soon as everyone stops resisting. Comply, comply.
Lines like this don't do your cause any favors. I know people who've been assaulted by homeless. Given that these are people who are desperate, and yes often dealing with mental or substance...
Simply due to how people don't like being reminded of how uncaring and indifferent so many of us are to the fact that some folks are allowed to be treated as subhuman simply due to poverty.
Lines like this don't do your cause any favors. I know people who've been assaulted by homeless. Given that these are people who are desperate, and yes often dealing with mental or substance issues, it's not really safe for either side involved. It's not unreasonable to want to not be literally attacked on the street. That doesn't mean what the governor is doing is right, but framing it solely as the haves are uncomfortable with the have nots does a disservice to the entire discussion.
I awoke one morning to find a homeless stranger in my house. He had broken in (because there is, like in many cities, a serious homelessness problem), and I admit, I was somewhat frightened. But...
I awoke one morning to find a homeless stranger in my house. He had broken in (because there is, like in many cities, a serious homelessness problem), and I admit, I was somewhat frightened. But the solution is not to grind them in the social mill. There's only one was to combat homelessness: have less homeless people. The problem there is, there's two schools of thought of how to do that, and they almost couldn't be more different.
Method one: Reduce the number of homeless people by devoting resources to fixing the issues that cause homelessness. Method two: make homelessness increasingly illegal (which does, ironically, make it so less people are living on the street... but it puts so many into the penal system, which is akin to a gravity well.)
My preference, despite my encounter in my own home, is still method one.
I do a lot of work with social services and community support agencies. As the director of one of these agencies is fond of remind people regularly, “housing is the only cure for homelessness.” I...
But the solution is not to grind them in the social mill. There's only one was to combat homelessness: have less homeless people
I do a lot of work with social services and community support agencies. As the director of one of these agencies is fond of remind people regularly, “housing is the only cure for homelessness.”
I think if more people thought like that, we’d make a lot more progress than we have on the issue.
I would expect it depends entirely on who is in your population of homeless people. The ones I see around my city look more like they need a psych ward bed for the rest of their lives. In other...
I would expect it depends entirely on who is in your population of homeless people. The ones I see around my city look more like they need a psych ward bed for the rest of their lives. In other places I’m told the homeless are more lucid and are simply average people that got fucked by the system.
I'm in favor of this method too, but it has a thorny component that perhaps hasn't been getting enough attention, at least in the context of US cities, and that's ensuring and increasing...
Method one: Reduce the number of homeless people by devoting resources to fixing the issues that cause homelessness.
I'm in favor of this method too, but it has a thorny component that perhaps hasn't been getting enough attention, at least in the context of US cities, and that's ensuring and increasing effectiveness of the resources devoted. Vast sums have gone into the cause in west coast cities to proportionally little effect.
That doesn't mean to stop putting resources towards reducing homelessness or to not increase how much is given, but increased accountability is direly needed.
Writing this, it seems to me that this might be the single most important change that can be made right now. The more money gets poured into the issue without materially improving it, the less favorable the greater public and political climate is going to be towards these programs and the more likely it is that they'll be cut.
Correct me if my thinking is incorrect, but doing a quick Google search tells me that the average amount of homeless per 10k in Europe is generally higher than in the US (average 19 per 10k)....
Correct me if my thinking is incorrect, but doing a quick Google search tells me that the average amount of homeless per 10k in Europe is generally higher than in the US (average 19 per 10k).
Europe generally has better social safety nets than we do in the US, though I don't know what services they provide for the homeless, which suggests the resolution may not be in simply providing services.
Not to say anything else of the problem, but a strong social safety net and services are generally regarded as a silver bullet for the unhoused, but it seems that just looking at statistics shows us that may not be the case.
Both the US and Europe have wildly different levels of homelessness in different places, and within Europe there's the further exacerbating factor of different national governments with...
Both the US and Europe have wildly different levels of homelessness in different places, and within Europe there's the further exacerbating factor of different national governments with potentially wildly different policies on things related to homelessness. I don't think comparing nationwide stats in the US with stat for whichever amalgam of European countries your stat includes is particularly illuminating as a result.
Manchester in the UK has more homeless shelter spaces than homeless, and still has plenty of street sleepers. The entry requirements for the shelters are as low as “don’t have any drugs on you”,...
Manchester in the UK has more homeless shelter spaces than homeless, and still has plenty of street sleepers.
The entry requirements for the shelters are as low as “don’t have any drugs on you”, and they are offered help and support to get off drug addiction.
I can’t think of many places with a better safety net than there and they still have a homeless problem. The commenter above said it’s option X or option Y… but why not a bit of both? If you provide mechanisms to escape poverty and homelessness and clamp down on drug users avoiding those mechanisms.
Manchester UK Homelessness Is it possible that shelters are breaking up families, or aren't safe spaces for people or belongings? I'm surprised there are enough shelter beds given the stats above,...
Is it possible that shelters are breaking up families, or aren't safe spaces for people or belongings? I'm surprised there are enough shelter beds given the stats above, which doesn't seem to imply sufficient shelter space given the breadth of the issue there.
Homeless Camps as Protest
Housing allowances are frozen, wages aren't sufficient if acquirable, and it looks like there's no actual way to reasonably get from sleeping rough to living in a home because the current social support doesn't let them afford anything.
Mary has been leading the camp’s fundraising drive; money which gets spent on tents. She says Mustard Tree, a local homeless charity, has tried to do a deal with Manchester City Council in which homeless people can trade in their tents for accommodation. But, she says, when homeless people did this, they ended up back at the camp, out of a tent. When I contacted Mustard Tree about this they said: “No, we are not asking people to give up their tents.”
So something is resulting in these folks giving their tents up and not getting sufficient accommodations.
Which suggests it's not as easy as shelters to beds. And with deaths up, I don't think it's because streets are too comfortable and not harassed enough. All of this applies anywhere fwiw. But Manchester was a convenient place to dig in.
And ultimately if you have a drug addiction, not having drugs on you may mean detoxing overnight at the shelter. What's the medical support for that, or the support for people to go use elsewhere and return.
Sadly, you are probably correct. But some of these encampments have created hazards that even empathetic people can't avoid. Having to walk through debris outside a tent that could contain exposed...
What will a non-zero number of those cops do? Assault, brutalize, and in some cases cripple or kill those homeless persons.
Sadly, you are probably correct.
But some of these encampments have created hazards that even empathetic people can't avoid.
Having to walk through debris outside a tent that could contain exposed needles to get from your front door to the sidewalk. Pedestrians walking onto busy streets to get around camps on the sidewalk.
Or the one I personally have experienced and fear the most, exiting the freeway on my motorcycle into a blind cloverleaf and finding someone with a shopping cart in the lane (camps are often between the freeway and the exit lane because they're secluded from foot traffic, but there's no way to get to them other than walking across the freeway or freeway exit).
My hope is that in SF, and elsewhere, resources like the street crisis response team will be used as you've indicated as the first contact in these sweeps.
A side note, I still vividly remember working in the psyD (I'm not a MD) and seeing how some of the newly admitted folks off the street were simultaneously very lucid and detailed in explaining that everything they owned was in their camp, and where that camp was, and wanting to know who was going to be holding it and how they'd get it back; while simultaneously being clearly not in their right mind (delusional or similar).
Really stuck with me for the complexity of the issue and just how competent and well adapted people were to this life on the street, despite not being able to integrate into the ambient society/economy.
I sympathize with the unhoused and recognize that I am much closer to being unhoused than I am to being a multimillionaire, but being unhoused is too easy. If utilizing resources means making...
I sympathize with the unhoused and recognize that I am much closer to being unhoused than I am to being a multimillionaire, but being unhoused is too easy. If utilizing resources means making sacrifices with your lifestyle until you get back on your feet, people won’t want to utilize the resources. It’s fucked up, but making living on the streets worse will push people to make the sacrifices needed to get their lives back on track.
Homelessness is a statistic, but each unhoused person is unique. Obviously the current resources don’t work for everyone, but if this gets more able bodied and minded unhoused people off the streets, we can use our resources to target those who need more help.
You seem to be framing being unhoused as the result of individual choices that people made or failed to make. But many people become unhoused due to evictions without cause, disruptions in...
You seem to be framing being unhoused as the result of individual choices that people made or failed to make. But many people become unhoused due to evictions without cause, disruptions in employment not due to their own actions, etc. Everyone has choices to make, but to act as if the unhoused could have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps through grit and determination ignores every institutional issue that we all face.
Did you actually just make the argument that people chose to be homeless because they're lazy and living on the street isn't unpleasant enough? I gave to be misunderstanding you. Did I miss some...
Did you actually just make the argument that people chose to be homeless because they're lazy and living on the street isn't unpleasant enough? I gave to be misunderstanding you. Did I miss some sarcasm?
I knew in the abstract that there had to be a non-zero number of people who felt that way here on Tildes, simply due to how many people there are. But that's different from being confronted with a...
I knew in the abstract that there had to be a non-zero number of people who felt that way here on Tildes, simply due to how many people there are. But that's different from being confronted with a person who'd actually unironically say it so bluntly. It honestly makes me sick that a comment like this is even on here, and the handful of votes only makes it worse. What an abominable thing to believe about people.
I try to remember that we're all products of our socialization and experiences. I grew up Catholic in a small Midwestern city. But for many of my experiences, I could have ended up sharing the...
I try to remember that we're all products of our socialization and experiences. I grew up Catholic in a small Midwestern city. But for many of my experiences, I could have ended up sharing the conservative beliefs of some of my peers.
It's a different topic but...
I remember drowning in the righteousness of American rage, Toby Keith style after 9/11, and how good it was Bush got elected after all... But then thinking how wrong it was that Sikhs were being attacked and being mistaken for Muslims. And then how the victims in question wouldn't "correct" the attackers, because the point wasn't their faith being misunderstood it was the attack being wrong. And then that this war didn't seem to be doing anything but killing a bunch of people. And then that Bush didn't seem really that great. And why Iraq? And WMDs... And I started shedding the scales of all that bit by bit. And school shootings. And coming out. And ask me my opinions on Mr Keith today.
But would I have had that without my ethics professor, my theology professor, my counseling professors, the books I read that taught me to be kind and brave in the face of injustice? If I hadn't picked up Butler in college would I have been thinking about racism as a white girl in a very segregated world? I had parents that taught me colorblindness in a well meaning way.
And I wouldn't be precisely here without doing years of work with populations most people ignore, people on parole, sex offenders, the seriously mentally ill. And seen them all for people when society does not.
I try to hope that most people are being as kind as they're capable, even when they're causing harm. And they're a result of those myriad experiences they've had through life. So they can still get to a place of greater kindness in the future (and so can I).
Love the name. Had a very similar journey myself, almost went into the military before a knee injury prevented me from passing an ROTC exam. What a different life that would have been. I'm still a...
Love the name. Had a very similar journey myself, almost went into the military before a knee injury prevented me from passing an ROTC exam. What a different life that would have been. I'm still a little guilty wracked with some of my islamaphobic past, and it's not helping that I'm seeing even more of that hate on Reddit every day.
Don't wallow in the guilt, be as kind to yourself as you're trying to be to others, but I think the shame does help keep me in check in small doses. Glad to hear your journey brought you here. And...
Don't wallow in the guilt, be as kind to yourself as you're trying to be to others, but I think the shame does help keep me in check in small doses. Glad to hear your journey brought you here.
And name? I certainly wouldn't give a name, I just collect them (◕ᴗ◕✿)
You are reminding me that I can't wait to throw a name stealing Fae at my friends in a D&D campaign and see how they play it. Also reminds me of the ways to spot AI art as a play off of fae: Count...
You are reminding me that I can't wait to throw a name stealing Fae at my friends in a D&D campaign and see how they play it.
Also reminds me of the ways to spot AI art as a play off of fae: Count the fingers, count the teeth, check the shadows and do not give up your name.
I'd like to make it very clear that, as my username states, I'm clearly definitely NOT a fae of any sort. Clearly. It's a real "my username raises a lot of questions that it answers moment." But...
I'd like to make it very clear that, as my username states, I'm clearly definitely NOT a fae of any sort. Clearly.
It's a real "my username raises a lot of questions that it answers moment."
But in regards to your ttrpg I've always been a fan of Sir Pratchett's words on Elves when applied to Fae
Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.”
And at the same time, in the past 8 years I've definitely considered making myself the problem of whatever might lie on the other side.
I really needed this response. I grew up in a very similar environment and believed similarly conservative things. If I can change, so can other people.
I really needed this response. I grew up in a very similar environment and believed similarly conservative things. If I can change, so can other people.
I wasn't being facetious there, I genuinely thought I must have misunderstood. I was really hoping to get schooled about sarcasm or something in response. I'm really morbidly curious about the...
I wasn't being facetious there, I genuinely thought I must have misunderstood. I was really hoping to get schooled about sarcasm or something in response.
I'm really morbidly curious about the specifics of this opinion.
If shelter situations are so terrible that living on the street is preferred, even when there is space, that's on the people running the shelters. If you have no reasonable option other than...
. It’s fucked up, but making living on the streets worse will push people to make the sacrifices needed to get their lives back on track.
If shelter situations are so terrible that living on the street is preferred, even when there is space, that's on the people running the shelters.
If you have no reasonable option other than living in your car, and then lose your car and live on the street, where exactly is the track?
I don't agree with this belief that people are only living in the street because of how easy a life it is.
Anecdotally, in Houston, TX I’m aware that many of our homeless do not want to stay in the shelters because other homeless people will steal their belongings inside the shelter. Additionally the...
Anecdotally, in Houston, TX I’m aware that many of our homeless do not want to stay in the shelters because other homeless people will steal their belongings inside the shelter. Additionally the shelters do not tolerate intoxication, and I know of a few specific homeless people who were kicked back out to the streets for showing up intoxicated (I was actually very disappointed in these individuals because I was personally helping them get back on their feet, but gave up after they were kicked out of shelters twice for the same damn thing lol)
I don’t believe the majority of homeless people intentionally are on the street because they’re outright lazy, but I do think it’s easier for these individuals to live on the street and be able to do/consume whatever they want, whenever they want versus having to abide by a set of rules and standards imposed onto them by whichever shelter they’re living in
In that sense, it is easier to live on the street because the individual retains unimpeded access to their vices. I don’t think there’s anything else about living on the street that could be considered easier than not living on the streets besides that
Do you have any data to support this? My intuition tells me that street living is not the kind of thing that you do because it is easy, but essentially because you don't have much of a choice. If...
making living on the streets worse will push people to make the sacrifices needed to get their lives back on track.
Do you have any data to support this?
My intuition tells me that street living is not the kind of thing that you do because it is easy, but essentially because you don't have much of a choice. If that's the case, making it more difficult won't actually accomplish anything.
All these sweeps do is make the problem go somewhere else. Or, in the worst case, they make the problem disappear.
Like seriously....people need to go camping more. With no outlets, showers or running toilets. Do that for a month and then tell me how nice and easy it is living without a roof over your head....
Like seriously....people need to go camping more. With no outlets, showers or running toilets.
Do that for a month and then tell me how nice and easy it is living without a roof over your head.
Even in an officially sanctioned 'recreational' way, it's not a cakewalk, especially in the heat or cold.
As a kid my mom and I camped for three months in the woods of upstate New York; my whole summer break was spent that way. It was fun, but it was fun because we had saved up for it , didn't have to...
As a kid my mom and I camped for three months in the woods of upstate New York; my whole summer break was spent that way. It was fun, but it was fun because we had saved up for it , didn't have to make a living while doing it, did it in a temperate place at a nice time of year, and had a home to go back to at the end of it or if anything went wrong. Changing even one of those aspects would have made it work, and changing two or more would have made it an unending hardship.
Having a support network (in this case an actual home) is pretty foundational. As they say in Common People (linked the definitive Ben Folds/Shatner cover)
Having a support network (in this case an actual home) is pretty foundational. As they say in Common People (linked the definitive Ben Folds/Shatner cover)
But still you'll never get it right
When you're lying in bed at night
Watching the roaches climb the wall
If you called your Dad, he could stop it all
I'd rather give a heroin addict a studio apartment and a safe space to deposit needles than having them nod off on the streets. Housing first. All other problems are secondary. Maslov's heirarchy...
If utilizing resources means making sacrifices with your lifestyle until you get back on your feet,
I'd rather give a heroin addict a studio apartment and a safe space to deposit needles than having them nod off on the streets.
Housing first. All other problems are secondary.
Maslov's heirarchy of needs....someone needs a stable place to live, with adequate food and water before they'll have any tangible success going through rehab and/or psychiatric treatment.
or they'll just die, which may be seen as a success to the people enacting these policies. Not me, I think that's a shitty and inhumane approach. I also don't believe that most people living on...
but making living on the streets worse will push people to make the sacrifices needed to get their lives back on track.
or they'll just die, which may be seen as a success to the people enacting these policies.
Not me, I think that's a shitty and inhumane approach. I also don't believe that most people living on the street in terrible conditions and trying to stay alive day by day are just a few sacrifices away from having a reasonable place to stay either, so
There's a lot of people disagreeing with you here and I don't want to pretend I don't disagree either but I do appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughts out cause I feel like it's...
There's a lot of people disagreeing with you here and I don't want to pretend I don't disagree either but I do appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughts out cause I feel like it's better to actually have discussions with disagreeing positions than it is to entirely all just be echoing each others thoughts and for those who disagree to just not comment at all.
I just haven't been responding to people because I feel like my comment was misunderstood and I don't want to get into drawn out arguments over a misunderstanding. People have been responding as...
I just haven't been responding to people because I feel like my comment was misunderstood and I don't want to get into drawn out arguments over a misunderstanding.
People have been responding as if I am saying that homelessness is a deliberate choice for 99% of people or that being homeless is easy. I was trying to say that there are big hurdles in between homelessness and getting back on your feet. The way many of the current resources are set up, you have to give up some level of autonomy to get help. Many are not willing or need a lot of convincing to accept help because it often times gets harder once you accept help.
Being able to criminalize sleeping in public isn't about dehumanizing homeless people. It gives the government a tool to compel people to seek help.
Wouldn't it make more sense to remove those hurdles, and to allow them to access those resources without giving up that autonomy? Does it matter whether or not that's the goal if it's the outcome?
Wouldn't it make more sense to remove those hurdles, and to allow them to access those resources without giving up that autonomy?
Being able to criminalize sleeping in public isn't about dehumanizing homeless people.
Does it matter whether or not that's the goal if it's the outcome?
Controversial, but honestly it’s probably politically savvy for Newsom to do this. Enforcement will mostly be local, so the most significant flak will fall on local officials. And many...
Controversial, but honestly it’s probably politically savvy for Newsom to do this. Enforcement will mostly be local, so the most significant flak will fall on local officials. And many constituents are increasingly losing patience with homeless encampments.
That said, it’s a band-aid fix. In the medium-long term, Newsom (and other politicians, both in and out of California) needs to fix affordable housing, needs to build more shelters (single-occupancy SRO-style. Not group shelters that 90% of homeless refuse because they are crap), and ultimately break the power of NIMBYs to block new development and new shelters. I think there’s other work that needs to be done on mental health and drug policy, but better housing is an important place to start for stabilizing things.
I'm not so sure. California, by and large, is very liberal. The conservatives in the state aren't going to suddenly come around to him (Fox is still blasting him for this as we speak), and the...
I'm not so sure. California, by and large, is very liberal. The conservatives in the state aren't going to suddenly come around to him (Fox is still blasting him for this as we speak), and the more progressive wing is going to be seriously pissed off over this. The question is whether or not there are enough moderate Dems and left-leaning Independents that will be happy enough over this to keep the incumbent in office if he gets challenged from the left.
I, for one, would happily vote for someone further to the left for governor. Newsom was more ok on a smaller stage, but since he started to polish his business centrist credentials, he's not who I...
I, for one, would happily vote for someone further to the left for governor. Newsom was more ok on a smaller stage, but since he started to polish his business centrist credentials, he's not who I want running the state.
Very hot take inbound. He was an ethically loose, centrist dickhead from day 1. He says what he needs to say to forward his political career. His ex-wife is married to Donald Trump Jr for pete's...
Very hot take inbound.
He was an ethically loose, centrist dickhead from day 1. He says what he needs to say to forward his political career. His ex-wife is married to Donald Trump Jr for pete's sake. I'd love an actual progressive like Barbara Lee - or a yet to be determined younger iteration.
Honestly, I agree with you. But because he was doing political stunts like allowing same sex marriages in SF to push the kinds of priorities that I felt had urgent importance, I was willing to...
Honestly, I agree with you. But because he was doing political stunts like allowing same sex marriages in SF to push the kinds of priorities that I felt had urgent importance, I was willing to give him a pass. As a mayor, those kinds of gestures meant a lot, and his ability to be a centrist dickhead that could hand our lives over to corporations was a lot smaller because his power was more constrained. As governor, he's tipped over to the other side of the line, and I'm definitely hating the thought of him reaching for the White House.
Yeah, that's why I think he's just parroting whatever is popular at the time. I loved his policies on same sex marriages and sanctuary cities; but I fear progressive stances of that magnitude are...
Yeah, that's why I think he's just parroting whatever is popular at the time. I loved his policies on same sex marriages and sanctuary cities; but I fear progressive stances of that magnitude are no longer popular with the constituency he is looking to gain.
If folks don't want to see drug paraphernalia or drug peddlers or vandalism or crime, sure, that's fine, send resources to target those things. Spend that 3 billion budget to clean up the province...
If folks don't want to see drug paraphernalia or drug peddlers or vandalism or crime, sure, that's fine, send resources to target those things. Spend that 3 billion budget to clean up the province and fight crime, sure.
But no, they're going to target homeless people.
And what's the solution? People have proposed solutions, and they're shutting it down.
Camper Resolution was supposed to be land leased to folks so they can live in very modest and very cheap trailer homes. They have 50 residents and a 800 strong waitlist, and 12 have found their own housing without city help.
If you don't want folks in tents, put them in trailers on a lot. Get water and electricity and you're all set. But nope they're cancelling the lease and they have cut water and they're offering "beds" that are dangerous and further entrench people into poverty.
The linkes article referenced caltrans. What are they doing but putting sharp rocks on where tents could sit.
Three billion dollar budget that doesn't solve anything.
Folsom police Chief Rick Hillman said that the department’s homeless outreach (HOT) team will continue to work on clearing the 13 known encampments still standing after weeks of tent city removals. The HOT commenced operations on July 1, and it has since swept about half a dozen encampments, according to Hillman.
He stressed that the city’s approach to engaging with tent city residents usually does not involve arrests or legal penalties, unless a resident is “determined to destroy some areas with debris and garbage.” Instead, he said, the HOT’s goal is to connect them with resources when their encampments are dismantled. Before clearing an encampment space, police meet with residents and post a 72-hour notice listing tools for assistance, in addition to coordinating with the volunteer group Jake’s Journey Home to help them access resources like temporary housing, social security cards and mental health services. Hillman added that the HOT has helped four former homeless encampment residents secure housing in the past month.
…
But it may take some time to take down the remaining 13 encampments known to the city. Efforts to remove tent cities have often posed financial challenges for Folsom: their hired contractors charge thousands of dollars to clear each encampment, a process that usually takes several days. Gov. Newsom’s order will likely save the city tens of thousands by sending state agencies to perform clearings instead of these companies. Hillman said he believes that state agencies will assist the city in their efforts to accommodate the needs of homeless people, beyond facilitating encampment removals.
Who are most of the cities and counties going to utilize to conduct any sweep, any action they direct at a homeless person or homeless community? Cops. What will a non-zero number of those cops do? Assault, brutalize, and in some cases cripple or kill those homeless persons.
If Gavin's order directed California municipalities to make social and case workers available, directed those trained individuals and agencies to be the first, second, even third points of contact in this "removal" of homeless communities maybe there'd be some level of non-evil morality involved.
But no, all because our society is content to use people up and throw them away, some folks who are already getting the shit end of the stick will end up injured or dead. Simply due to how people don't like being reminded of how uncaring and indifferent so many of us are to the fact that some folks are allowed to be treated as subhuman simply due to poverty.
ps: The fact that some homeless individuals have mental or addiction issues doesn't change the math here. Some folks do have real and serious issues, unrelated to only poverty, that lead to their homelessness, and that sometimes further cause them to resist "help" that might or might not be available. That's a complicating issue with poverty that leads to homelessness, but doesn't change that people are going to die as cops are let off the leash to go do the dirty, do what even Gavin with his heartless order refuses to openly admit he wants done.
Thanks SCOTUS! Nice to know it's legal to execute people simply for not being good cogs in the capitalist machinery. Remain calm citizens, this is normal and will all be over as soon as everyone stops resisting. Comply, comply.
Lines like this don't do your cause any favors. I know people who've been assaulted by homeless. Given that these are people who are desperate, and yes often dealing with mental or substance issues, it's not really safe for either side involved. It's not unreasonable to want to not be literally attacked on the street. That doesn't mean what the governor is doing is right, but framing it solely as the haves are uncomfortable with the have nots does a disservice to the entire discussion.
I awoke one morning to find a homeless stranger in my house. He had broken in (because there is, like in many cities, a serious homelessness problem), and I admit, I was somewhat frightened. But the solution is not to grind them in the social mill. There's only one was to combat homelessness: have less homeless people. The problem there is, there's two schools of thought of how to do that, and they almost couldn't be more different.
Method one: Reduce the number of homeless people by devoting resources to fixing the issues that cause homelessness. Method two: make homelessness increasingly illegal (which does, ironically, make it so less people are living on the street... but it puts so many into the penal system, which is akin to a gravity well.)
My preference, despite my encounter in my own home, is still method one.
I do a lot of work with social services and community support agencies. As the director of one of these agencies is fond of remind people regularly, “housing is the only cure for homelessness.”
I think if more people thought like that, we’d make a lot more progress than we have on the issue.
Didn't Utah have major successes with granting housing and coaching people into jobs? Why hasn't this been replicated more widely?
I would expect it depends entirely on who is in your population of homeless people. The ones I see around my city look more like they need a psych ward bed for the rest of their lives. In other places I’m told the homeless are more lucid and are simply average people that got fucked by the system.
To be fair, homeless people who can plan and strategize tend to be a lot less visible, may be still working, living in a car or couch surfing.
I'm in favor of this method too, but it has a thorny component that perhaps hasn't been getting enough attention, at least in the context of US cities, and that's ensuring and increasing effectiveness of the resources devoted. Vast sums have gone into the cause in west coast cities to proportionally little effect.
That doesn't mean to stop putting resources towards reducing homelessness or to not increase how much is given, but increased accountability is direly needed.
Writing this, it seems to me that this might be the single most important change that can be made right now. The more money gets poured into the issue without materially improving it, the less favorable the greater public and political climate is going to be towards these programs and the more likely it is that they'll be cut.
Correct me if my thinking is incorrect, but doing a quick Google search tells me that the average amount of homeless per 10k in Europe is generally higher than in the US (average 19 per 10k).
Europe generally has better social safety nets than we do in the US, though I don't know what services they provide for the homeless, which suggests the resolution may not be in simply providing services.
Not to say anything else of the problem, but a strong social safety net and services are generally regarded as a silver bullet for the unhoused, but it seems that just looking at statistics shows us that may not be the case.
Both the US and Europe have wildly different levels of homelessness in different places, and within Europe there's the further exacerbating factor of different national governments with potentially wildly different policies on things related to homelessness. I don't think comparing nationwide stats in the US with stat for whichever amalgam of European countries your stat includes is particularly illuminating as a result.
Manchester in the UK has more homeless shelter spaces than homeless, and still has plenty of street sleepers.
The entry requirements for the shelters are as low as “don’t have any drugs on you”, and they are offered help and support to get off drug addiction.
I can’t think of many places with a better safety net than there and they still have a homeless problem. The commenter above said it’s option X or option Y… but why not a bit of both? If you provide mechanisms to escape poverty and homelessness and clamp down on drug users avoiding those mechanisms.
Manchester UK Homelessness
Is it possible that shelters are breaking up families, or aren't safe spaces for people or belongings? I'm surprised there are enough shelter beds given the stats above, which doesn't seem to imply sufficient shelter space given the breadth of the issue there.
Homeless Camps as Protest
Housing allowances are frozen, wages aren't sufficient if acquirable, and it looks like there's no actual way to reasonably get from sleeping rough to living in a home because the current social support doesn't let them afford anything.
So something is resulting in these folks giving their tents up and not getting sufficient accommodations.
this article also tries to address causes
Which suggests it's not as easy as shelters to beds. And with deaths up, I don't think it's because streets are too comfortable and not harassed enough. All of this applies anywhere fwiw. But Manchester was a convenient place to dig in.
And ultimately if you have a drug addiction, not having drugs on you may mean detoxing overnight at the shelter. What's the medical support for that, or the support for people to go use elsewhere and return.
Sadly, you are probably correct.
But some of these encampments have created hazards that even empathetic people can't avoid.
Having to walk through debris outside a tent that could contain exposed needles to get from your front door to the sidewalk. Pedestrians walking onto busy streets to get around camps on the sidewalk.
Or the one I personally have experienced and fear the most, exiting the freeway on my motorcycle into a blind cloverleaf and finding someone with a shopping cart in the lane (camps are often between the freeway and the exit lane because they're secluded from foot traffic, but there's no way to get to them other than walking across the freeway or freeway exit).
My hope is that in SF, and elsewhere, resources like the street crisis response team will be used as you've indicated as the first contact in these sweeps.
A side note, I still vividly remember working in the psyD (I'm not a MD) and seeing how some of the newly admitted folks off the street were simultaneously very lucid and detailed in explaining that everything they owned was in their camp, and where that camp was, and wanting to know who was going to be holding it and how they'd get it back; while simultaneously being clearly not in their right mind (delusional or similar).
Really stuck with me for the complexity of the issue and just how competent and well adapted people were to this life on the street, despite not being able to integrate into the ambient society/economy.
I sympathize with the unhoused and recognize that I am much closer to being unhoused than I am to being a multimillionaire, but being unhoused is too easy. If utilizing resources means making sacrifices with your lifestyle until you get back on your feet, people won’t want to utilize the resources. It’s fucked up, but making living on the streets worse will push people to make the sacrifices needed to get their lives back on track.
Homelessness is a statistic, but each unhoused person is unique. Obviously the current resources don’t work for everyone, but if this gets more able bodied and minded unhoused people off the streets, we can use our resources to target those who need more help.
You seem to be framing being unhoused as the result of individual choices that people made or failed to make. But many people become unhoused due to evictions without cause, disruptions in employment not due to their own actions, etc. Everyone has choices to make, but to act as if the unhoused could have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps through grit and determination ignores every institutional issue that we all face.
Did you actually just make the argument that people chose to be homeless because they're lazy and living on the street isn't unpleasant enough? I gave to be misunderstanding you. Did I miss some sarcasm?
I knew in the abstract that there had to be a non-zero number of people who felt that way here on Tildes, simply due to how many people there are. But that's different from being confronted with a person who'd actually unironically say it so bluntly. It honestly makes me sick that a comment like this is even on here, and the handful of votes only makes it worse. What an abominable thing to believe about people.
I try to remember that we're all products of our socialization and experiences. I grew up Catholic in a small Midwestern city. But for many of my experiences, I could have ended up sharing the conservative beliefs of some of my peers.
It's a different topic but...
I remember drowning in the righteousness of American rage, Toby Keith style after 9/11, and how good it was Bush got elected after all... But then thinking how wrong it was that Sikhs were being attacked and being mistaken for Muslims. And then how the victims in question wouldn't "correct" the attackers, because the point wasn't their faith being misunderstood it was the attack being wrong. And then that this war didn't seem to be doing anything but killing a bunch of people. And then that Bush didn't seem really that great. And why Iraq? And WMDs... And I started shedding the scales of all that bit by bit. And school shootings. And coming out. And ask me my opinions on Mr Keith today.
But would I have had that without my ethics professor, my theology professor, my counseling professors, the books I read that taught me to be kind and brave in the face of injustice? If I hadn't picked up Butler in college would I have been thinking about racism as a white girl in a very segregated world? I had parents that taught me colorblindness in a well meaning way.
And I wouldn't be precisely here without doing years of work with populations most people ignore, people on parole, sex offenders, the seriously mentally ill. And seen them all for people when society does not.
I try to hope that most people are being as kind as they're capable, even when they're causing harm. And they're a result of those myriad experiences they've had through life. So they can still get to a place of greater kindness in the future (and so can I).
Love the name. Had a very similar journey myself, almost went into the military before a knee injury prevented me from passing an ROTC exam. What a different life that would have been. I'm still a little guilty wracked with some of my islamaphobic past, and it's not helping that I'm seeing even more of that hate on Reddit every day.
Don't wallow in the guilt, be as kind to yourself as you're trying to be to others, but I think the shame does help keep me in check in small doses. Glad to hear your journey brought you here.
And name? I certainly wouldn't give a name, I just collect them (◕ᴗ◕✿)
Attention all Tildes users: if DefinitelyNotAFae says "may I have your attention?", DO NOT SAY YES. You will get ADHD.
.... I COULD HAVE FIXED MY ADHD?!?!
(╯ರ ~ ರ)╯︵ ┻━┻
┬─┬ノ(ಠ_ಠノ)
You are reminding me that I can't wait to throw a name stealing Fae at my friends in a D&D campaign and see how they play it.
Also reminds me of the ways to spot AI art as a play off of fae: Count the fingers, count the teeth, check the shadows and do not give up your name.
I'd like to make it very clear that, as my username states, I'm clearly definitely NOT a fae of any sort. Clearly.
It's a real "my username raises a lot of questions that it answers moment."
But in regards to your ttrpg I've always been a fan of Sir Pratchett's words on Elves when applied to Fae
And at the same time, in the past 8 years I've definitely considered making myself the problem of whatever might lie on the other side.
I really needed this response. I grew up in a very similar environment and believed similarly conservative things. If I can change, so can other people.
I wasn't being facetious there, I genuinely thought I must have misunderstood. I was really hoping to get schooled about sarcasm or something in response.
I'm really morbidly curious about the specifics of this opinion.
If shelter situations are so terrible that living on the street is preferred, even when there is space, that's on the people running the shelters.
If you have no reasonable option other than living in your car, and then lose your car and live on the street, where exactly is the track?
I don't agree with this belief that people are only living in the street because of how easy a life it is.
Anecdotally, in Houston, TX I’m aware that many of our homeless do not want to stay in the shelters because other homeless people will steal their belongings inside the shelter. Additionally the shelters do not tolerate intoxication, and I know of a few specific homeless people who were kicked back out to the streets for showing up intoxicated (I was actually very disappointed in these individuals because I was personally helping them get back on their feet, but gave up after they were kicked out of shelters twice for the same damn thing lol)
I don’t believe the majority of homeless people intentionally are on the street because they’re outright lazy, but I do think it’s easier for these individuals to live on the street and be able to do/consume whatever they want, whenever they want versus having to abide by a set of rules and standards imposed onto them by whichever shelter they’re living in
In that sense, it is easier to live on the street because the individual retains unimpeded access to their vices. I don’t think there’s anything else about living on the street that could be considered easier than not living on the streets besides that
Do you have any data to support this?
My intuition tells me that street living is not the kind of thing that you do because it is easy, but essentially because you don't have much of a choice. If that's the case, making it more difficult won't actually accomplish anything.
All these sweeps do is make the problem go somewhere else. Or, in the worst case, they make the problem disappear.
Like seriously....people need to go camping more. With no outlets, showers or running toilets.
Do that for a month and then tell me how nice and easy it is living without a roof over your head.
Even in an officially sanctioned 'recreational' way, it's not a cakewalk, especially in the heat or cold.
As a kid my mom and I camped for three months in the woods of upstate New York; my whole summer break was spent that way. It was fun, but it was fun because we had saved up for it , didn't have to make a living while doing it, did it in a temperate place at a nice time of year, and had a home to go back to at the end of it or if anything went wrong. Changing even one of those aspects would have made it work, and changing two or more would have made it an unending hardship.
Having a support network (in this case an actual home) is pretty foundational. As they say in Common People (linked the definitive Ben Folds/Shatner cover)
I'd rather give a heroin addict a studio apartment and a safe space to deposit needles than having them nod off on the streets.
Housing first. All other problems are secondary.
Maslov's heirarchy of needs....someone needs a stable place to live, with adequate food and water before they'll have any tangible success going through rehab and/or psychiatric treatment.
or they'll just die, which may be seen as a success to the people enacting these policies.
Not me, I think that's a shitty and inhumane approach. I also don't believe that most people living on the street in terrible conditions and trying to stay alive day by day are just a few sacrifices away from having a reasonable place to stay either, so
There's a lot of people disagreeing with you here and I don't want to pretend I don't disagree either but I do appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughts out cause I feel like it's better to actually have discussions with disagreeing positions than it is to entirely all just be echoing each others thoughts and for those who disagree to just not comment at all.
I just haven't been responding to people because I feel like my comment was misunderstood and I don't want to get into drawn out arguments over a misunderstanding.
People have been responding as if I am saying that homelessness is a deliberate choice for 99% of people or that being homeless is easy. I was trying to say that there are big hurdles in between homelessness and getting back on your feet. The way many of the current resources are set up, you have to give up some level of autonomy to get help. Many are not willing or need a lot of convincing to accept help because it often times gets harder once you accept help.
Being able to criminalize sleeping in public isn't about dehumanizing homeless people. It gives the government a tool to compel people to seek help.
Wouldn't it make more sense to remove those hurdles, and to allow them to access those resources without giving up that autonomy?
Does it matter whether or not that's the goal if it's the outcome?
Controversial, but honestly it’s probably politically savvy for Newsom to do this. Enforcement will mostly be local, so the most significant flak will fall on local officials. And many constituents are increasingly losing patience with homeless encampments.
That said, it’s a band-aid fix. In the medium-long term, Newsom (and other politicians, both in and out of California) needs to fix affordable housing, needs to build more shelters (single-occupancy SRO-style. Not group shelters that 90% of homeless refuse because they are crap), and ultimately break the power of NIMBYs to block new development and new shelters. I think there’s other work that needs to be done on mental health and drug policy, but better housing is an important place to start for stabilizing things.
I'm not so sure. California, by and large, is very liberal. The conservatives in the state aren't going to suddenly come around to him (Fox is still blasting him for this as we speak), and the more progressive wing is going to be seriously pissed off over this. The question is whether or not there are enough moderate Dems and left-leaning Independents that will be happy enough over this to keep the incumbent in office if he gets challenged from the left.
I, for one, would happily vote for someone further to the left for governor. Newsom was more ok on a smaller stage, but since he started to polish his business centrist credentials, he's not who I want running the state.
Very hot take inbound.
He was an ethically loose, centrist dickhead from day 1. He says what he needs to say to forward his political career. His ex-wife is married to Donald Trump Jr for pete's sake. I'd love an actual progressive like Barbara Lee - or a yet to be determined younger iteration.
Honestly, I agree with you. But because he was doing political stunts like allowing same sex marriages in SF to push the kinds of priorities that I felt had urgent importance, I was willing to give him a pass. As a mayor, those kinds of gestures meant a lot, and his ability to be a centrist dickhead that could hand our lives over to corporations was a lot smaller because his power was more constrained. As governor, he's tipped over to the other side of the line, and I'm definitely hating the thought of him reaching for the White House.
Yeah, that's why I think he's just parroting whatever is popular at the time. I loved his policies on same sex marriages and sanctuary cities; but I fear progressive stances of that magnitude are no longer popular with the constituency he is looking to gain.
If folks don't want to see drug paraphernalia or drug peddlers or vandalism or crime, sure, that's fine, send resources to target those things. Spend that 3 billion budget to clean up the province and fight crime, sure.
But no, they're going to target homeless people.
And what's the solution? People have proposed solutions, and they're shutting it down.
Camper Resolution was supposed to be land leased to folks so they can live in very modest and very cheap trailer homes. They have 50 residents and a 800 strong waitlist, and 12 have found their own housing without city help.
If you don't want folks in tents, put them in trailers on a lot. Get water and electricity and you're all set. But nope they're cancelling the lease and they have cut water and they're offering "beds" that are dangerous and further entrench people into poverty.
The linkes article referenced caltrans. What are they doing but putting sharp rocks on where tents could sit.
Three billion dollar budget that doesn't solve anything.
Newsom ordered homeless camps cleared. Here’s how 3 California communities respond (Sacramento Bee)
…