6 ms·

> The problem here isn't just homelessness, but acceptance of bad behaviors and almost no penalties for crimes committed by those without means -- citations are

by RickS 10y ago

> The problem here isn't just homelessness, but acceptance of bad behaviors and almost no penalties for crimes committed by those without means -- citations are ignored, many arrests are catch and release. I couldn't agree more. I wish this opinion were more widely held. Yes, we should work to create social programs that help people who have nothing. Yes, these people are hurting enough and it's sad to just pile on the trouble. But we encourage this behavior every time we allow it to happen with no consequences. There's a guy who's been living in a tent on my block on Folsom longer than I've been living in my apartment. What the fuck? The police don't care when I call, even though there are laws in place about this. I'm a monster if I walk over there and rip it down. There need to be consequences, but how do you discourage someone who has nothing? They're almost inherently unpunishable.

imauld 10y ago
> But we encourage this behavior every time we allow it to happen with no consequences. There's a guy who's been living in a tent on my block on Folsom longer than I've been living in my apartment. What the fuck? The police don't care when I call, even though there are laws in place about this. I'm a monster if I walk over there and rip it down. Yes, you are a monster if you rip down their home. Encourage this behavior? How do we encourage homelessness by locking people up for having nothing? Do you think by putting someone in jail or forcing someone with most likely no income to pay a fine that it will all the sudden hit them that homelessness might not be the best lifestyle? These people are doing what they must to survive. Do some of them have mental health or substance abuse issues? Probably, but the solution to those problems isn't punitive. The sort of issues require counseling and access to health care and most importantly shelter. Trying to combat homelessness by stepping up police efforts (which brings in host of it's own problems) is short sighted and wreaks of NIMBY-ism.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- RickS 10y ago
  I haven't encouraged locking anybody up, or fining anybody. They don't care. It doesn't work. I know. Please don't put words in my mouth. "They're just doing what they must to survive" doesn't justify the street behavior of san francisco vagrants any more than it justifies a hungry dog ripping the face off a kid. Do you live in a neighborhood where you deal with the homeless and mentally ill on a daily basis and at all hours? Do you step in shit? Are you spit on? Accosted? Have your roommates come home with phlegm and spit in their hair? Have you left your apartment to find a man's face pressed against the window, yelling "You look like you've been waiting to eat my ass your whole life"? I'd need a yard to put the Y in NIMBY, but all I have is a feces-caked grate that I routinely kick people off of so I can open the door and get into a street that stinks of piss. Sorry if you're bummed that I'm interrupting their pill sales. Live and let live doesn't cut it here, not for me. The idea that these people should be left alone regardless of the blight and destruction they cause to public spaces is short sighted and wreaks of "I don't actually experience this problem". The homeless are struggling. They need help. But they're a scourge, too, and I'm sick and tired of people boo-hooing about how they're just trying to survive as the streets in this city rot from their presence, as though their being in pain makes it acceptable that they erode the quality of every public space in the city. It is not acceptable. The solutions we have for homelessness and its associated ailments are weak, and need to be better. They need to be rooted in generosity and upward mobility. I completely agree. I'm all for huge city spending on building, and on every conceivable social program, especially for mental health. What I am not for is turning a blind eye to the realities of homelessness' effects on the city in the mean time, and to distance the crimes and destruction from the individuals who commit them. You do not get a free pass to fuck up the world because your life sucks.
  - npizzolato 10y ago
    > I haven't encouraged locking anybody up, or fining anybody. Well, you encouraged "consequences," which usually means one of those two things. > But we encourage this behavior every time we allow it to happen with no consequences... There need to be consequences, but how do you discourage someone who has nothing? They're almost inherently unpunishable. So, there need to be consequences, but you don't agree with locking people up or fining them? What consequences were you referring to then?
rdl 10y ago
I believe there should be enforced confinement of people who break laws repeatedly. However, it's crazy to put homeless people into jails. If someone is clearly mentally ill, drug addicted, or otherwise incapable of taking care of themselves, and they violate minor laws repeatedly, something below a prison camp seems like the most appropriate option -- and I don't see why it needs to be in expensive real estate in the city. A live/work camp wouldn't be break-even, but probably could support people for $10-15k/yr, which is much cheaper than prison or other services. Barring any other system to re-integrate people into society locally, I'd rather they be sent to camp rather than left in parks and permitted to violate laws indefinitely, or sent to jail/prison. Since the crimes would be very minor, it wouldn't be "punishment" so much as just housing, so there's a lot of opportunity to make it both better for the participants and less expensive than any kind of prison incarceration. That's the baseline; if private organizations want to provide them with something better, that's an option too, but there's a limit to what city/county/state government can do.
- prawn 10y ago
  Someone further down linked to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multnomah_County_Poor_Farm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multnomah_County_Poor_Farm I think if you moved people out to an open facility like that, showed them the lifestyle available and then let them choose whether they would stay, you might see some success? Opportunities for them to find purpose in life, but no huge obligation to work bulk hours; shelter in an affordable region and style; support at-hand, but still the option of ignoring it and staying in control.
  - rdl 10y ago
    The interesting part would be making it non-selective; anyone who wanted to be there for a while could. Maybe some social pressure that rich/temporary people contribute cash or externally produced things.
feklar 10y ago
Bribes. The cops here used to find the most chronic bums who caused disturbances and offer them cash and a bus ticket to leave and never come back. Effectively makes it somebody else's problem but what can you do. Your block could all agree to pitch in and bribe him to leave then make the area less desireable for new replacement hobos to move in.
- viraptor 10y ago
  > bribe him to leave then make the area less desireable for new replacement hobos If you have an area that pays people to leave it, how is it less desirable? Depending on the bribe amount, it could be tempting to try.

by RickS 10y ago

imauld 10y ago

> But we encourage this behavior every time we allow it to happen with no consequences. There's a guy who's been living in a tent on my block on Folsom longer than I've been living in my apartment. What the fuck? The police don't care when I call, even though there are laws in place about this. I'm a monster if I walk over there and rip it down. Yes, you are a monster if you rip down their home. Encourage this behavior? How do we encourage homelessness by locking people up for having nothing? Do you think by putting someone in jail or forcing someone with most likely no income to pay a fine that it will all the sudden hit them that homelessness might not be the best lifestyle? These people are doing what they must to survive. Do some of them have mental health or substance abuse issues? Probably, but the solution to those problems isn't punitive. The sort of issues require counseling and access to health care and most importantly shelter. Trying to combat homelessness by stepping up police efforts (which brings in host of it's own problems) is short sighted and wreaks of NIMBY-ism.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
RickS 10y ago
I haven't encouraged locking anybody up, or fining anybody. They don't care. It doesn't work. I know. Please don't put words in my mouth. "They're just doing what they must to survive" doesn't justify the street behavior of san francisco vagrants any more than it justifies a hungry dog ripping the face off a kid. Do you live in a neighborhood where you deal with the homeless and mentally ill on a daily basis and at all hours? Do you step in shit? Are you spit on? Accosted? Have your roommates come home with phlegm and spit in their hair? Have you left your apartment to find a man's face pressed against the window, yelling "You look like you've been waiting to eat my ass your whole life"? I'd need a yard to put the Y in NIMBY, but all I have is a feces-caked grate that I routinely kick people off of so I can open the door and get into a street that stinks of piss. Sorry if you're bummed that I'm interrupting their pill sales. Live and let live doesn't cut it here, not for me. The idea that these people should be left alone regardless of the blight and destruction they cause to public spaces is short sighted and wreaks of "I don't actually experience this problem". The homeless are struggling. They need help. But they're a scourge, too, and I'm sick and tired of people boo-hooing about how they're just trying to survive as the streets in this city rot from their presence, as though their being in pain makes it acceptable that they erode the quality of every public space in the city. It is not acceptable. The solutions we have for homelessness and its associated ailments are weak, and need to be better. They need to be rooted in generosity and upward mobility. I completely agree. I'm all for huge city spending on building, and on every conceivable social program, especially for mental health. What I am not for is turning a blind eye to the realities of homelessness' effects on the city in the mean time, and to distance the crimes and destruction from the individuals who commit them. You do not get a free pass to fuck up the world because your life sucks.
- npizzolato 10y ago
  > I haven't encouraged locking anybody up, or fining anybody. Well, you encouraged "consequences," which usually means one of those two things. > But we encourage this behavior every time we allow it to happen with no consequences... There need to be consequences, but how do you discourage someone who has nothing? They're almost inherently unpunishable. So, there need to be consequences, but you don't agree with locking people up or fining them? What consequences were you referring to then?

rdl 10y ago

I believe there should be enforced confinement of people who break laws repeatedly. However, it's crazy to put homeless people into jails. If someone is clearly mentally ill, drug addicted, or otherwise incapable of taking care of themselves, and they violate minor laws repeatedly, something below a prison camp seems like the most appropriate option -- and I don't see why it needs to be in expensive real estate in the city. A live/work camp wouldn't be break-even, but probably could support people for $10-15k/yr, which is much cheaper than prison or other services. Barring any other system to re-integrate people into society locally, I'd rather they be sent to camp rather than left in parks and permitted to violate laws indefinitely, or sent to jail/prison. Since the crimes would be very minor, it wouldn't be "punishment" so much as just housing, so there's a lot of opportunity to make it both better for the participants and less expensive than any kind of prison incarceration. That's the baseline; if private organizations want to provide them with something better, that's an option too, but there's a limit to what city/county/state government can do.

prawn 10y ago
Someone further down linked to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multnomah_County_Poor_Farm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multnomah_County_Poor_Farm I think if you moved people out to an open facility like that, showed them the lifestyle available and then let them choose whether they would stay, you might see some success? Opportunities for them to find purpose in life, but no huge obligation to work bulk hours; shelter in an affordable region and style; support at-hand, but still the option of ignoring it and staying in control.
- rdl 10y ago
  The interesting part would be making it non-selective; anyone who wanted to be there for a while could. Maybe some social pressure that rich/temporary people contribute cash or externally produced things.

feklar 10y ago

Bribes. The cops here used to find the most chronic bums who caused disturbances and offer them cash and a bus ticket to leave and never come back. Effectively makes it somebody else's problem but what can you do. Your block could all agree to pitch in and bribe him to leave then make the area less desireable for new replacement hobos to move in.

viraptor 10y ago
> bribe him to leave then make the area less desireable for new replacement hobos If you have an area that pays people to leave it, how is it less desirable? Depending on the bribe amount, it could be tempting to try.