38 ms·

What is the problem with people living in tents? Why are they forced to dismantle and kicked out by cops? It makes no sense. How can Americans be so cruel to th

by mnm1 8y ago

What is the problem with people living in tents? Why are they forced to dismantle and kicked out by cops? It makes no sense. How can Americans be so cruel to the most vulnerable, most helpless people in our society that they won't even let them live in tents and insist on disrupting their lives constantly? What kind of sick society does this? Is it just so rich assholes don't have to look at them and be reminded that this is one consequences to them being rich? It's utterly disgusting and indefensible. These are real people just like everyone else, with emotions and feelings and hopes and dreams. Are Americans really that callous that they are impervious to the suffering of so many? Are they really that entitled and naive as to think that only people who can afford insane costs of living deserve to be treated with dignity and respect? The homeless don't hurt anyone just by living in tents. They are just trying to get by like everyone else. What is wrong with that?

newnewpdro 8y ago
It's not just rich assholes, a surprising majority of the population want all evidence of poverty out of sight in their lives. Santa Cruz made it illegal just to sleep visibly in public in an attempt to criminalize homelessness so they could hide the problem.
- Fellshard 8y ago
  We should not hide the problem, and we also should not elevate it to 'a valid lifestyle'. Surely we can try to find other options between those two.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    I get the impression some people see criminalization and housing the homeless in jails as more than just hiding the problem.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    What’s the problem with someone of sound mind (i.e. not due to mental illness or addiction) living on the streets by choice? The only issues I have are that sanitation is a problem, and the places we force them into are not safe for them, or for non-homeless people, for that matter. Would you criminalize someone who’s eternally “backpacking through Europe,” metaphorically speaking? No one should be forced to live on the streets in a country that has a large multiple of vacant homes per homeless person, but if someone makes a voluntary choice to do so, why stop them, as long as it doesn’t harm public safety? Broadly speaking, you’re allowed to do stupid things in the US, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.
    - Fellshard 8y ago
      Sanitation, and sometimes (though certainly extremely rarely) infrastructure damage, as seen in the 2017 collapse of an Atlanta overpass. I don't think this is the best point to argue on, especially as it's arguing from extremes, but it's a point to consider if more examples crop up. I've heard of similar fires starting in Seattle, but with less risk since the're not being set near other material likely to catch fire. I also don't think that you can group together /transients/ like who you describe and the /tent and tarp settlements/ that are prominent and overwhelming Seattle at this time. These only pronounce and concentrate the sanitary and fire risks, and invariably leave swathes of trash about them. One of these tent settlements near Pioneer Square was in the middle of the city, not even near the highways, and gained some infamy and even a title name, the 'tent mansion', when it accrued a full keg. It's one thing to say we shouldn't hide problems, another to let a problem run so wild and concentrated that the surrounding area is made useless for other public use in the process.
      - pmiller2 8y ago
        I suspect many of the tent and tarp folks are doing it because there’s no better alternative. If cities would just build simple housing with proper sanitation (tiny houses, SROs, whatever) to get those people off the street, I’m sure that would take care of a majority of the public sanitation issues. Once you get someone into a home, it is vastly easier to help them stabilize their other issues (mental health and drug abuse among them). Housing first works, and it’s been proven to work time and again.
        newnewpdro 8y ago
        > If cities would just build simple housing with proper sanitation (tiny houses, SROs, whatever) to get those people off the street I don't think it's that simple. This isn't a fixed constant set of people living on the street that you find homes for and that's the end of the problem. It's more of a revolving door; there's a constant supply replacing whoever gets off the street. I think what the article mentioned about Seattle is actually a reasonable approach: Seattle, meanwhile, has allowed some tent cities to operate as de facto communities — long-term, regulated, even with phone numbers and addresses. That might be a good compromise. Provide enough infrastructure to be sanitary, like California's state campgrounds with hot showers and toilets, with the addition of mailing addresses. Give them enough stability to maintain a job and a state ID, but don't make it so comfortable as to incentivize exploitation. It's a difficult balancing act, effectively helping the homeless, without making it an attractive path of least effort.
- debatem1 8y ago
  I hate to be that guy, but I had a cousin who drove down to Santa Cruz and lived out of their van there after hearing it was paradise for the homeless. While I don't condone these laws, I do understand wanting to shed that reputation given the sheer scale of the problem there.
- diogenescynic 8y ago
  It's not about criminalizing poverty. It's about trespassing and having campers at your house 24/7/365 who are criminals. It's an awful drain to your quality of life. Stop demonizing people for not thinking it's "progressive" to let people crap on the streets and shoot up in public. I voted for Bernie, but I live in SF and I see how much money we waste by not addressing the problem directly and in more common sense ways. Just allowing criminals to take over the city and make everyone else feel unsafe is just not fair.
  - freshcatch_ 8y ago
    Might want to update your user name, Diogenes slept rough
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    San Francisco is neglecting to enforce existing laws regularly broken in the open by folks largely overlapping with the homeless population. I've mentioned this before on this forum. At one point when I worked in the mission we watched daily a homeless encampment operate a bicycle chop shop in broad daylight from our second-floor lunch room. The police did absolutely nothing until it had been operating for well over a month. They would drive by occasionally, doing nothing more than slowing down, while a pile of stolen bicycles and bicycle parts sat next to the tents covered by nothing more than a tarp. We saw a constant flow of people coming with newly stolen bicycles and leaving with rebuilt permutations presumably to be sold on craigslist. They didn't even try to hide it. Apparently the police stopped bothering to arrest people for petty crimes because nothing would come of it. The criminals would be immediately released back on the streets. That has nothing to do with tolerating homelessness and some people living on the streets. We don't need to make homelessness illegal to arrest people operating a bicycle chop shop in broad daylight. Sometimes I wonder if the city is deliberately neglecting to police crimes being committed in broad daylight independent of homelessness to further an agenda interested in criminalizing homelessness. If they can let things get so bad that everyone conflates homelessness with rampant uncrontrolled crime and destruction of the city, then it becomes much easier to garner support for such laws in a panic. The police should do their jobs in at least enforcing the existing laws and we should be punishing criminals. You could clean up the homeless problem in San Francisco pretty easily by simply enforcing laws and incarcerating criminals who happen to also be homeless. It's exceptionally easy when they're operating out in the oppen without even a roof and walls to hide behind.
- jmspring 8y ago
  Sorry, but things aren't that simple in Santa Cruz. The reality is more complicated. Currently, there is an SF/Seattle style camp that has sprung up on the entrance into town. The current city council is made up of a majority that sides more with homeless uses than the concerns of others including families. The first 5 (bi weekly) city council meetings of the year have been stuck on what to do with this camp that has sprung up (there were others before it). The reason this topic has dominated is due to the current council make up. The head of county health is on public record stating that the county hands out between 3 and 600 needles each day for a camp of between 100 and 150 people. This does not account for a "volunteer" group that hands out other needles things like Narcan. City staff has been working towards "other locations" for "transitional camps". During a recent presentation one of the pro-camp council people is on record asking "as we move people out of the camp to more permanent housing, what happens to those that move in filling those vacancies. In essence, implying he has an expectation to handle every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes through there. People who have "met with the campers" (including camp members themselves) indicate people don't want services or housing. Specifically the demand is for "a space for a low barrier camp that is private and allows for self-organization within the camp". In otherwords, those that have spoken and (campers and representatives) are demanding something outside what the city and county are wanting to provide. In reality, the working homeless, those trying to make it (including homeless students) aren't in these camps. They are parking in quiet neighborhoods, camping in areas away from people, etc. I've talked with many at a coffee shop (no longer open) over the last half dozen years. Many are right to point towards the main issue being drugs and mental illness. (The Seattle Dying Video is spot on). The problem here in Santa Cruz is that most of the "homeless advocates" and the 30+ non-profits (why so many for a city of 60k) addressing "homelessness" are perpetuating the current lifestyle of enablement. There are those that do get help and move up and out. A recent, newly minted "advocate", is living in an RV and was living near her parent's house in Saratoga. She was requested to moved along and magically landed in Santa Cruz. She is one of those engaging with the camp, but has also made demands on the city that they provide her a space to park safely in her RV. She literally has been in Santa Cruz for less than 6 months. Oh, and has a couple of small children. Why? The city of Santa Cruz is really good at providing a bunch of freebies to those that want them. It also has a city staff that is pretty incompetent and tends to lose when they get sued. Further, yes they are the county seat, but they have dug themselves a hole over the course of decades and the county is right in not helping the city dig themselves out. There was even an article recently in SFGate where Berkeley is moving RV dwellers along (Sorry side tangent).
scottlegrand2 8y ago
Not all homeless people are alike. The left only seems to see victims and the right only sees cheaters looking for a free ride. The truth IMO is a continuous distribution between those two extremes. And as long as the proposed solutions only target one tail or another, no progress will be made because of the other tail being ignored. This should be a solvable problem in my opinion we are a rich country and we can afford to feed and shelter everyone.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > This should be a solvable problem in my opinion we are a rich country and we can afford to feed and shelter everyone. The problem is figuring out what to do about the homeless people who refuse to accept shelter and other forms of government assistance. What are you going to do, arrest them? That's been tried in San Francisco and it went badly. If you force them to move they will set up camp somewhere else, so that doesn't really solve anything. A few years ago in San Jose there was a very large tent encampment called "The Jungle" with over 1000 people in it, and many of them were there by choice. They preferred the independence of living in the camp versus living in a shelter. In the camp they were free to own pets, smoke, consume alcohol, and do a bunch of other stuff that is not allowed in shelters but that most of us do in our homes on a regular basis.
  - cheriot 8y ago
    > The problem is figuring out what to do about the homeless people who refuse to accept shelter and other forms of government assistance. Does San Francisco have shelter beds that are sitting empty? We just don't have that problem yet. The people refusing shelter are refusing to throw away all of their remaining possessions for the promise of a few nights inside and then getting kicked out.
    - twblalock 8y ago
      > The people refusing shelter are refusing to throw away all of their remaining possessions for the promise of a few nights inside and then getting kicked out. That's true for some. But there are many who would not accept a guaranteed permanent shelter bed because they prefer the freedom of living on their own. If you won't accept the reality of that, you'll never solve the problem.
georgemcbay 8y ago
We hate the constant reminder that we're two missed paychecks away from joining them. So get'em outta here!
- cheesymuffin 8y ago
  Seriously, man! I'm broke as hell!
  - Simon_says 8y ago
    Serious question: this is what an emergency fund is for, no? You can earn the same income and spend the same dollar amount over your life, but if you build up a buffer of 6 month's expenses, you are no longer chronically broke. This is what I was taught at an early age. Why is this advice not more commonly followed? It's not about being rich or poor or having a high or low income. The advice is truly agnostic to those issues. It's about shifting consumption over the course of your life so that you always have a buffer. Edit: I guess truth hurts.
    - projektir 8y ago
      The average emergency fund can be wiped out quickly by a bad bout of illness.
      - Simon_says 8y ago
        It should go without saying that your emergency fund should exceed the deductible on your insurance. I know there are multi-year illnesses, or illnesses that cause one to become unable to work and keep health insurance, but those situations are exceedingly rare. Being broke, on the other hand, is exceedingly common.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Among other factors, disease: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/medieval-diseases-flare-as-unsanitary-living-conditions-proliferate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/medieval-diseases...

by mnm1 8y ago

newnewpdro 8y ago

It's not just rich assholes, a surprising majority of the population want all evidence of poverty out of sight in their lives. Santa Cruz made it illegal just to sleep visibly in public in an attempt to criminalize homelessness so they could hide the problem.

Fellshard 8y ago
We should not hide the problem, and we also should not elevate it to 'a valid lifestyle'. Surely we can try to find other options between those two.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  I get the impression some people see criminalization and housing the homeless in jails as more than just hiding the problem.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  What’s the problem with someone of sound mind (i.e. not due to mental illness or addiction) living on the streets by choice? The only issues I have are that sanitation is a problem, and the places we force them into are not safe for them, or for non-homeless people, for that matter. Would you criminalize someone who’s eternally “backpacking through Europe,” metaphorically speaking? No one should be forced to live on the streets in a country that has a large multiple of vacant homes per homeless person, but if someone makes a voluntary choice to do so, why stop them, as long as it doesn’t harm public safety? Broadly speaking, you’re allowed to do stupid things in the US, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.
  - Fellshard 8y ago
    Sanitation, and sometimes (though certainly extremely rarely) infrastructure damage, as seen in the 2017 collapse of an Atlanta overpass. I don't think this is the best point to argue on, especially as it's arguing from extremes, but it's a point to consider if more examples crop up. I've heard of similar fires starting in Seattle, but with less risk since the're not being set near other material likely to catch fire. I also don't think that you can group together /transients/ like who you describe and the /tent and tarp settlements/ that are prominent and overwhelming Seattle at this time. These only pronounce and concentrate the sanitary and fire risks, and invariably leave swathes of trash about them. One of these tent settlements near Pioneer Square was in the middle of the city, not even near the highways, and gained some infamy and even a title name, the 'tent mansion', when it accrued a full keg. It's one thing to say we shouldn't hide problems, another to let a problem run so wild and concentrated that the surrounding area is made useless for other public use in the process.
    - pmiller2 8y ago
      I suspect many of the tent and tarp folks are doing it because there’s no better alternative. If cities would just build simple housing with proper sanitation (tiny houses, SROs, whatever) to get those people off the street, I’m sure that would take care of a majority of the public sanitation issues. Once you get someone into a home, it is vastly easier to help them stabilize their other issues (mental health and drug abuse among them). Housing first works, and it’s been proven to work time and again.
      - newnewpdro 8y ago
        > If cities would just build simple housing with proper sanitation (tiny houses, SROs, whatever) to get those people off the street I don't think it's that simple. This isn't a fixed constant set of people living on the street that you find homes for and that's the end of the problem. It's more of a revolving door; there's a constant supply replacing whoever gets off the street. I think what the article mentioned about Seattle is actually a reasonable approach: Seattle, meanwhile, has allowed some tent cities to operate as de facto communities — long-term, regulated, even with phone numbers and addresses. That might be a good compromise. Provide enough infrastructure to be sanitary, like California's state campgrounds with hot showers and toilets, with the addition of mailing addresses. Give them enough stability to maintain a job and a state ID, but don't make it so comfortable as to incentivize exploitation. It's a difficult balancing act, effectively helping the homeless, without making it an attractive path of least effort.
debatem1 8y ago
I hate to be that guy, but I had a cousin who drove down to Santa Cruz and lived out of their van there after hearing it was paradise for the homeless. While I don't condone these laws, I do understand wanting to shed that reputation given the sheer scale of the problem there.
diogenescynic 8y ago
It's not about criminalizing poverty. It's about trespassing and having campers at your house 24/7/365 who are criminals. It's an awful drain to your quality of life. Stop demonizing people for not thinking it's "progressive" to let people crap on the streets and shoot up in public. I voted for Bernie, but I live in SF and I see how much money we waste by not addressing the problem directly and in more common sense ways. Just allowing criminals to take over the city and make everyone else feel unsafe is just not fair.
- freshcatch_ 8y ago
  Might want to update your user name, Diogenes slept rough
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  San Francisco is neglecting to enforce existing laws regularly broken in the open by folks largely overlapping with the homeless population. I've mentioned this before on this forum. At one point when I worked in the mission we watched daily a homeless encampment operate a bicycle chop shop in broad daylight from our second-floor lunch room. The police did absolutely nothing until it had been operating for well over a month. They would drive by occasionally, doing nothing more than slowing down, while a pile of stolen bicycles and bicycle parts sat next to the tents covered by nothing more than a tarp. We saw a constant flow of people coming with newly stolen bicycles and leaving with rebuilt permutations presumably to be sold on craigslist. They didn't even try to hide it. Apparently the police stopped bothering to arrest people for petty crimes because nothing would come of it. The criminals would be immediately released back on the streets. That has nothing to do with tolerating homelessness and some people living on the streets. We don't need to make homelessness illegal to arrest people operating a bicycle chop shop in broad daylight. Sometimes I wonder if the city is deliberately neglecting to police crimes being committed in broad daylight independent of homelessness to further an agenda interested in criminalizing homelessness. If they can let things get so bad that everyone conflates homelessness with rampant uncrontrolled crime and destruction of the city, then it becomes much easier to garner support for such laws in a panic. The police should do their jobs in at least enforcing the existing laws and we should be punishing criminals. You could clean up the homeless problem in San Francisco pretty easily by simply enforcing laws and incarcerating criminals who happen to also be homeless. It's exceptionally easy when they're operating out in the oppen without even a roof and walls to hide behind.
jmspring 8y ago
Sorry, but things aren't that simple in Santa Cruz. The reality is more complicated. Currently, there is an SF/Seattle style camp that has sprung up on the entrance into town. The current city council is made up of a majority that sides more with homeless uses than the concerns of others including families. The first 5 (bi weekly) city council meetings of the year have been stuck on what to do with this camp that has sprung up (there were others before it). The reason this topic has dominated is due to the current council make up. The head of county health is on public record stating that the county hands out between 3 and 600 needles each day for a camp of between 100 and 150 people. This does not account for a "volunteer" group that hands out other needles things like Narcan. City staff has been working towards "other locations" for "transitional camps". During a recent presentation one of the pro-camp council people is on record asking "as we move people out of the camp to more permanent housing, what happens to those that move in filling those vacancies. In essence, implying he has an expectation to handle every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes through there. People who have "met with the campers" (including camp members themselves) indicate people don't want services or housing. Specifically the demand is for "a space for a low barrier camp that is private and allows for self-organization within the camp". In otherwords, those that have spoken and (campers and representatives) are demanding something outside what the city and county are wanting to provide. In reality, the working homeless, those trying to make it (including homeless students) aren't in these camps. They are parking in quiet neighborhoods, camping in areas away from people, etc. I've talked with many at a coffee shop (no longer open) over the last half dozen years. Many are right to point towards the main issue being drugs and mental illness. (The Seattle Dying Video is spot on). The problem here in Santa Cruz is that most of the "homeless advocates" and the 30+ non-profits (why so many for a city of 60k) addressing "homelessness" are perpetuating the current lifestyle of enablement. There are those that do get help and move up and out. A recent, newly minted "advocate", is living in an RV and was living near her parent's house in Saratoga. She was requested to moved along and magically landed in Santa Cruz. She is one of those engaging with the camp, but has also made demands on the city that they provide her a space to park safely in her RV. She literally has been in Santa Cruz for less than 6 months. Oh, and has a couple of small children. Why? The city of Santa Cruz is really good at providing a bunch of freebies to those that want them. It also has a city staff that is pretty incompetent and tends to lose when they get sued. Further, yes they are the county seat, but they have dug themselves a hole over the course of decades and the county is right in not helping the city dig themselves out. There was even an article recently in SFGate where Berkeley is moving RV dwellers along (Sorry side tangent).

scottlegrand2 8y ago

Not all homeless people are alike. The left only seems to see victims and the right only sees cheaters looking for a free ride. The truth IMO is a continuous distribution between those two extremes. And as long as the proposed solutions only target one tail or another, no progress will be made because of the other tail being ignored. This should be a solvable problem in my opinion we are a rich country and we can afford to feed and shelter everyone.

twblalock 8y ago
> This should be a solvable problem in my opinion we are a rich country and we can afford to feed and shelter everyone. The problem is figuring out what to do about the homeless people who refuse to accept shelter and other forms of government assistance. What are you going to do, arrest them? That's been tried in San Francisco and it went badly. If you force them to move they will set up camp somewhere else, so that doesn't really solve anything. A few years ago in San Jose there was a very large tent encampment called "The Jungle" with over 1000 people in it, and many of them were there by choice. They preferred the independence of living in the camp versus living in a shelter. In the camp they were free to own pets, smoke, consume alcohol, and do a bunch of other stuff that is not allowed in shelters but that most of us do in our homes on a regular basis.
- cheriot 8y ago
  > The problem is figuring out what to do about the homeless people who refuse to accept shelter and other forms of government assistance. Does San Francisco have shelter beds that are sitting empty? We just don't have that problem yet. The people refusing shelter are refusing to throw away all of their remaining possessions for the promise of a few nights inside and then getting kicked out.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    > The people refusing shelter are refusing to throw away all of their remaining possessions for the promise of a few nights inside and then getting kicked out. That's true for some. But there are many who would not accept a guaranteed permanent shelter bed because they prefer the freedom of living on their own. If you won't accept the reality of that, you'll never solve the problem.

georgemcbay 8y ago

We hate the constant reminder that we're two missed paychecks away from joining them. So get'em outta here!

cheesymuffin 8y ago
Seriously, man! I'm broke as hell!
- Simon_says 8y ago
  Serious question: this is what an emergency fund is for, no? You can earn the same income and spend the same dollar amount over your life, but if you build up a buffer of 6 month's expenses, you are no longer chronically broke. This is what I was taught at an early age. Why is this advice not more commonly followed? It's not about being rich or poor or having a high or low income. The advice is truly agnostic to those issues. It's about shifting consumption over the course of your life so that you always have a buffer. Edit: I guess truth hurts.
  - projektir 8y ago
    The average emergency fund can be wiped out quickly by a bad bout of illness.
    - Simon_says 8y ago
      It should go without saying that your emergency fund should exceed the deductible on your insurance. I know there are multi-year illnesses, or illnesses that cause one to become unable to work and keep health insurance, but those situations are exceedingly rare. Being broke, on the other hand, is exceedingly common.

dredmorbius 8y ago

Among other factors, disease: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/medieval-diseases-flare-as-unsanitary-living-conditions-proliferate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/medieval-diseases...