3 ms·
This whole camping trend, whether on beaches or in parks or on other public property, makes no sense to me. Society is built on the expectation of protected pro
by throwawaysea 8y ago
This whole camping trend, whether on beaches or in parks or on other public property, makes no sense to me. Society is built on the expectation of protected property (reserved for certain uses), enforcement of laws (such as litter laws), and earning of privileges (rather than feeling entitled to live wherever one wants). I don't think it is fair that law-abiding residents who pay taxes and have worked to earn those pricey homes can have their public amenities, which are meant for day-use, instead crowded-up by transient residents. It just defies common sense.
In Seattle, we see the effects of similar permissive laws all around us. Property crime has gone up significantly alongside our recent lax enforcement of littering laws and due to the allowance of "urban camping". We have induced a large homeless population from elsewhere due to our permissiveness - even from cities immediately next door (https://q13fox.com/2019/02/26/did-federal-way-bus-its-homeless-to-seattle/ https://q13fox.com/2019/02/26/did-federal-way-bus-its-homele...). The rise of RVs taking up parking spaces is another problem - it is essentially freeloading off of spaces meant for use by residents of that neighborhood and for temporary day-use. And of course, these RVs are a blight - they are often in shoddy condition, they make the neighborhood look less safe, and they leave trash all around them (or worse, sewage runoff). Many have needles around them and are clearly used to deal drugs. With burglaries happening often, I can't tell you how anxiety-inducing it can be to have someone pitch a tent on the sidewalk in front of your home, camping there all day everyday, watching all residents' movements, etc. This city used to be beautiful and it is trended towards a trashy Mad Max like situation.
I don't agree with arguments that this is due to cost of housing or supply issues. This is due to people feeling entitled. If one can't afford to live in some area, then they should consider finding a different area to live in, or a different line of work that enables them to live in that area. No one is entitled to live wherever they want, doing whatever job they want (e.g. the musician quoted in the article), at whatever wages they are able to earn in that job. That's simply not tenable. There are plenty of affordable places in America where people can make a living and thrive. And yes, it may require that you look outside of the most-desirable locations, or that you do work that isn't your "passion", but that type of compromise is simply a part of life.
- kelp 8y agoI have a lot of sympathy for your argument that this problem is making it worse for everyone. I live in SOMA in San Francisco and regularly encounter many of the issues you describe. It makes the quality of living worse for the whole neighborhood, and I do think it is in part caused by very lax rules about what is acceptable in public spaces. That said, I think you under-estimate how hard it is for someone to move once they are experiencing homelessness. I doubt the majority of people in this situation are doing to to pursue a music career... This isn't about entitlement. If your only option is to live in a van, your day to day existence is going to be very stress-full trying to scratch out enough income for your basic needs, and parking tickets, impound, etc could put you into an even worse spot that you can't recover from. The idea that you should just up and move to a cheaper place to live sounds reasonable on the surface. But imagine all you have is that Van, you don't have enough money for any major repairs, let alone hundreds of dollars in gas to get to some cheaper place. You don't have a network there, and you don't know your way around, so what are your job prospects? The reality is that when you're living this close to the edge, you're only thinking day to day, because you're always one problem away from ending up in an even worse situation. Packing up and going some place cheaper is far from a viable option. Finally, most people who are now homeless in an area were previously housed in that area, so they probably know people there. They may also have some kind of public benefit, and have some clue about how to navigate that system. Packing up and leaving, especially to another state, starts them back at zero.