8 ms·

On an anecdotal note: As someone who is self employed, I used to sit at Starbucks a lot to get work done in a different environment than my home. Getting out re

On an anecdotal note: As someone who is self employed, I used to sit at Starbucks a lot to get work done in a different environment than my home. Getting out really helps me. However, I've started to avoid Starbucks because of the homeless issue. I'm in SoCal, and I completely relate to the struggles of the homeless. I even donate my time to a local food pantry and our shelter. The smell and crazy stares are one thing, but what really drives me away is the bathroom use. The Starbucks near me have 1-2 bathrooms, and it's happened to me that these bathrooms can be occupied by a homeless person for 30+ minutes. This is an unreasonable amount of time for me to wait when I have to go and coffee is a diuretic. Now when I want to work outside my home I drive to a library that's in an area without public transportation or nearby places for the homeless to congregate, and I can use it because of that. There's a starbucks with similar characteristics (not near public transport, no place to congregate near by), but it's too far. The library that's closer to me, the one I would prefer to go to, is completely overrun by homeless. The homeless issue is so complex. Every solution has its pros and cons. The terrible thing is that there seems to be two sides to our communities and each side seems to only see the pros or cons of any solution (depending on their ideological bend) while the other does the same. No one seems to be weighing the pros AND cons in a reasonable way, or accepting that there are no perfect solutions. The issue is so polarized, even very intelligent people seem incapable of even admitting something as simple, and I would hope obvious, as the fact that any solution will have pros and cons. It's as if there's no getting past 'the other tribe has terrible ideas' mentality.

jimbob45 7y ago
Shit solution: Would it be possible to enact some sort of hygiene requirement to come to these places?
- kova12 7y ago
  good luck enforcing that
  - vladus2000 7y ago
    There is a hobby shop by me that strictly enforces it, as nerds and hygiene don't always go together. I have seen them kick multiple people out. It doesn't seem to negatively impact their business, and I prefer going there to play games over one that is closer that does not have that rule (plus the other place tend to be hot which makes it even worse).
    - kova12 7y ago
      I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's not free. Every employee busy kicking out homeless people is an employee not busy with his direct duties. Starbucks already carries the burden of providing free shitters to bums, now they also have to pay for hygiene code enforcement?
bobwaycott 7y ago
> As someone who is self employed, I used to sit at Starbucks a lot to get work done in a different environment than my home... and I completely relate to the struggles of the homeless. I find it dubious that a self -employed person who uses Starbucks to get away from home can, in any way, completely relate to the struggles of the homeless. And I’m seriously not just trying to nitpick here. It sounds like you may strongly sympathize with the homeless, but that’s not at all the same as completely relating to their struggles when you’re both employed and not homeless. Starbucks is a luxury and privileged escape for a self-employed person with a home. I think it’s great you volunteer your time. But your lengthy comment still reads as an employed, housed person complaining about the inconvenience they encounter from the homeless. Have you been homeless before? Are you so good at completely relating to the struggles of the homeless that you recognize the privilege and luxury you’re enjoying to travel out of your way to avoid the homeless? And even just that bit—your comments about how solving homeless problems is complex is completely overwhelmed by your anecdotes of avoiding them (and still complaining about how inconvenient it is to you personally to avoid them).
- NicolasGorden 7y ago
  I used the word relate as in the definition of the word: "to have or establish a relationship", "to have relationship or connection" and "to respond especially favorably". I say this because I have friends who became homeless, and I care for them deeply and feel terrible I can't help. I didn't grow up in an English speaking country. I guess more appropriate would be to empathize. I'll use that one next time. Thanks. :)
  - bobwaycott 7y ago
    Colloquially, to say you completely relate to someone typically means you share an experience in common with them that grants you a deeper understanding of what they’re experiencing by virtue of having experienced it yourself. For example, as a white male, I’d never say I completely relate to the lived experiences of minority populations in the US. I can be sympathetic, empathetic, compassionate, etc. But I cannot relate to their experience in any sort of equal form. By the way, I don’t doubt your sincerity in any way—I’ve never met anyone who volunteered their time to the homeless who didn’t deeply care for them and their struggles. However, I still think it’s worth pointing out to ourselves the many small ways in which we avoid the homeless—and I’m equally guilty of it. I’ve found that helping the homeless is something it feels far easier to do in volunteer settings—when it’s in a specific place set aside for the homeless, at a specific time, and we can just leave the homeless behind when we’re done. Those of us who are not homeless feel good about helping, but feel annoyed when they come into “our space”—spaces like Starbucks. This is where we have the privilege and luxury to pay for our presence, and find our metaphorical feathers ruffled when someone inconveniences us—which we somewhat loudly underscore when we complain about the greater inconvenience we are willing to endure just so we can avoid the inconvenience of encountering the homeless.
chadcmulligan 7y ago
> The homeless issue is so complex Is it though? I'm an Australian so take my comments with a grain of salt. Seeing the US from an external viewpoint, it seems the mental gymnastics that people go through in the US to basically wreck the public spaces and infrastructure is fascinating. From a purely selfish point of view being surrounded by homeless unmedicated crazy people is a bad thing, the solution is fairly obvious - cheap medical for those that can't afford it, homeless shelters for the less fortunate, build more houses so that houses are cheaper, cheap education. Looking from the other side of the world, what started out as apparent greed some years ago has now become ideology - there is no solution. There are some with the same ideology here, they are trying to create the same situation, fortunately they are not winning, though it's a continual fight. I've had the same argument with many people here - the argument seems to be dying though, which I find promising, why should I pay taxes? Well you should pay taxes for roads, you need roads? well yes. You want education for your children? well yes. Sewerage? Well yes, and so on. By enumerating the things that taxes pay for seems to make them acceptable. Do you want to be surrounded by crazy people when you go out? No, well we should pay taxes to have cheap health etc. I was at our state library yesterday, it was crazy people free, there are always a couple of people sleeping in the library, but they seem to be looked after. There's a lot of support infrastructure that seems to keep them somewhere, I don't know really, but I know if the government spending is reduced they'll reappear so taxes are paid. Is there waste in my tax money? probably, the idea that private enterprise has no waste though is farcical - I've been a corporate consultant.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  cheap medical for those that can't afford it, homeless shelters for the less fortunate, build more houses so that houses are cheaper, cheap education. I'm all for cheap medical and build more houses. I think that would go a long way towards resolving the housing issue in the US. I've had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy and I spent nearly six years homeless. I blog about it. It's routine for people to reiterate the same tired point of view that "It's all crazies and junkies and more housing won't solve it." Quoting data that increases in housing costs correlates to about 96% of the increase in homelessness and people still insist they're version of events is the one true explanation. I'm not denying there's a lot of drug use and mental health issues on the street. But both of those are actively fostered by homelessness and there are millionaire rock stars who are in and out of rehab, so it's really not accurate to pretend that addiction is done kind of root cause explanation. It's just not that simple and the mantra of "junkies and crazies" mostly gets used to act like it's an unsolvable personal issue and not a systemic issue. Our housing issues are rooted in events that occurred at the end of WW2. Most people don't see the connection between those events, the policies that grew out of them and the debacle we currently have. I've studied this issue for many years. I don't know how to get traction on solving it. I'm a woman and I was homeless for years. Sexism and classism close a lot of doors in my face while people basically sit around listening intently to well-heeled white men repeat the usual BS as to why we can't actually fix anything. Just an FYI for people tempted to jump up and tell me UBI is the solution: my personal opinion of UBI is that it's a puke worthy fuck you that intentionally and with malice aforethought shits all over the poor and actively excludes them from the halls of power. So let's just skip that part of the conversation. I'm not sympathetic.
lsc 7y ago
eh, it seems like the obvious solution to these problems is to provision some public bathrooms, you know, Netherlands-style.
- NicolasGorden 7y ago
  I like that and I'd probably support some version of such a plan. But there are issues, especially where I live. Population density is quite thin out here in the desert. Also, since we don't offer a social net like in Holland, you'd need to police it against people literally sleeping in them or simply destroying them. Not to mention using them for nefarious activities. I'm not being alarmist, just saying there's a real cost to dealing with such aspects when people are spread out as thin as they are here. Maybe once we know what the cost is we'd find that the funds would be better spent setting up more shelters WITH bathrooms? Not saying this is the case. But that's exactly my original point: all these solutions are nuanced and need to be seen for what they are; addressing deep rooted social issues, with no solution being perfect and tons of choices that need to be made. Even if someone knew the perfect solution, finding how to bring it about is what matters. And that's bound to be imperfect, since that is what we live in.
  - zapita 7y ago
    > Also, since we don't offer a social net like in Holland, you'd need to police it against people literally sleeping in them or simply destroying them Or provide a social net?
  - lsc 7y ago
    do you have a lot of homelessness in the thinly-populated desert?
  - ac29 7y ago
    The cost is about $300k/toilet: https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/02/03/city-leaders-public-bathroom-cesar-chavez-park/ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/02/03/city-leaders-publ...
- vanniv 7y ago
vincent-toups 7y ago
I think this is disingenuous - I doubt anyone who proposed letting homeless people use the restroom at Starbucks thought it was a "win win." And I doubt they represented it that way. I'm not familiar with the discourse on the subject, so I could be wrong.
bambataa 7y ago
The situation you describe and the terminology you use to describe it make your society sound broken.

jimbob45 7y ago

Shit solution: Would it be possible to enact some sort of hygiene requirement to come to these places?

kova12 7y ago
good luck enforcing that
- vladus2000 7y ago
  There is a hobby shop by me that strictly enforces it, as nerds and hygiene don't always go together. I have seen them kick multiple people out. It doesn't seem to negatively impact their business, and I prefer going there to play games over one that is closer that does not have that rule (plus the other place tend to be hot which makes it even worse).
  - kova12 7y ago
    I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's not free. Every employee busy kicking out homeless people is an employee not busy with his direct duties. Starbucks already carries the burden of providing free shitters to bums, now they also have to pay for hygiene code enforcement?

bobwaycott 7y ago

> As someone who is self employed, I used to sit at Starbucks a lot to get work done in a different environment than my home... and I completely relate to the struggles of the homeless. I find it dubious that a self -employed person who uses Starbucks to get away from home can, in any way, completely relate to the struggles of the homeless. And I’m seriously not just trying to nitpick here. It sounds like you may strongly sympathize with the homeless, but that’s not at all the same as completely relating to their struggles when you’re both employed and not homeless. Starbucks is a luxury and privileged escape for a self-employed person with a home. I think it’s great you volunteer your time. But your lengthy comment still reads as an employed, housed person complaining about the inconvenience they encounter from the homeless. Have you been homeless before? Are you so good at completely relating to the struggles of the homeless that you recognize the privilege and luxury you’re enjoying to travel out of your way to avoid the homeless? And even just that bit—your comments about how solving homeless problems is complex is completely overwhelmed by your anecdotes of avoiding them (and still complaining about how inconvenient it is to you personally to avoid them).

NicolasGorden 7y ago
I used the word relate as in the definition of the word: "to have or establish a relationship", "to have relationship or connection" and "to respond especially favorably". I say this because I have friends who became homeless, and I care for them deeply and feel terrible I can't help. I didn't grow up in an English speaking country. I guess more appropriate would be to empathize. I'll use that one next time. Thanks. :)
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  Colloquially, to say you completely relate to someone typically means you share an experience in common with them that grants you a deeper understanding of what they’re experiencing by virtue of having experienced it yourself. For example, as a white male, I’d never say I completely relate to the lived experiences of minority populations in the US. I can be sympathetic, empathetic, compassionate, etc. But I cannot relate to their experience in any sort of equal form. By the way, I don’t doubt your sincerity in any way—I’ve never met anyone who volunteered their time to the homeless who didn’t deeply care for them and their struggles. However, I still think it’s worth pointing out to ourselves the many small ways in which we avoid the homeless—and I’m equally guilty of it. I’ve found that helping the homeless is something it feels far easier to do in volunteer settings—when it’s in a specific place set aside for the homeless, at a specific time, and we can just leave the homeless behind when we’re done. Those of us who are not homeless feel good about helping, but feel annoyed when they come into “our space”—spaces like Starbucks. This is where we have the privilege and luxury to pay for our presence, and find our metaphorical feathers ruffled when someone inconveniences us—which we somewhat loudly underscore when we complain about the greater inconvenience we are willing to endure just so we can avoid the inconvenience of encountering the homeless.

chadcmulligan 7y ago

> The homeless issue is so complex Is it though? I'm an Australian so take my comments with a grain of salt. Seeing the US from an external viewpoint, it seems the mental gymnastics that people go through in the US to basically wreck the public spaces and infrastructure is fascinating. From a purely selfish point of view being surrounded by homeless unmedicated crazy people is a bad thing, the solution is fairly obvious - cheap medical for those that can't afford it, homeless shelters for the less fortunate, build more houses so that houses are cheaper, cheap education. Looking from the other side of the world, what started out as apparent greed some years ago has now become ideology - there is no solution. There are some with the same ideology here, they are trying to create the same situation, fortunately they are not winning, though it's a continual fight. I've had the same argument with many people here - the argument seems to be dying though, which I find promising, why should I pay taxes? Well you should pay taxes for roads, you need roads? well yes. You want education for your children? well yes. Sewerage? Well yes, and so on. By enumerating the things that taxes pay for seems to make them acceptable. Do you want to be surrounded by crazy people when you go out? No, well we should pay taxes to have cheap health etc. I was at our state library yesterday, it was crazy people free, there are always a couple of people sleeping in the library, but they seem to be looked after. There's a lot of support infrastructure that seems to keep them somewhere, I don't know really, but I know if the government spending is reduced they'll reappear so taxes are paid. Is there waste in my tax money? probably, the idea that private enterprise has no waste though is farcical - I've been a corporate consultant.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
cheap medical for those that can't afford it, homeless shelters for the less fortunate, build more houses so that houses are cheaper, cheap education. I'm all for cheap medical and build more houses. I think that would go a long way towards resolving the housing issue in the US. I've had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy and I spent nearly six years homeless. I blog about it. It's routine for people to reiterate the same tired point of view that "It's all crazies and junkies and more housing won't solve it." Quoting data that increases in housing costs correlates to about 96% of the increase in homelessness and people still insist they're version of events is the one true explanation. I'm not denying there's a lot of drug use and mental health issues on the street. But both of those are actively fostered by homelessness and there are millionaire rock stars who are in and out of rehab, so it's really not accurate to pretend that addiction is done kind of root cause explanation. It's just not that simple and the mantra of "junkies and crazies" mostly gets used to act like it's an unsolvable personal issue and not a systemic issue. Our housing issues are rooted in events that occurred at the end of WW2. Most people don't see the connection between those events, the policies that grew out of them and the debacle we currently have. I've studied this issue for many years. I don't know how to get traction on solving it. I'm a woman and I was homeless for years. Sexism and classism close a lot of doors in my face while people basically sit around listening intently to well-heeled white men repeat the usual BS as to why we can't actually fix anything. Just an FYI for people tempted to jump up and tell me UBI is the solution: my personal opinion of UBI is that it's a puke worthy fuck you that intentionally and with malice aforethought shits all over the poor and actively excludes them from the halls of power. So let's just skip that part of the conversation. I'm not sympathetic.

lsc 7y ago

eh, it seems like the obvious solution to these problems is to provision some public bathrooms, you know, Netherlands-style.

NicolasGorden 7y ago
I like that and I'd probably support some version of such a plan. But there are issues, especially where I live. Population density is quite thin out here in the desert. Also, since we don't offer a social net like in Holland, you'd need to police it against people literally sleeping in them or simply destroying them. Not to mention using them for nefarious activities. I'm not being alarmist, just saying there's a real cost to dealing with such aspects when people are spread out as thin as they are here. Maybe once we know what the cost is we'd find that the funds would be better spent setting up more shelters WITH bathrooms? Not saying this is the case. But that's exactly my original point: all these solutions are nuanced and need to be seen for what they are; addressing deep rooted social issues, with no solution being perfect and tons of choices that need to be made. Even if someone knew the perfect solution, finding how to bring it about is what matters. And that's bound to be imperfect, since that is what we live in.
- zapita 7y ago
  > Also, since we don't offer a social net like in Holland, you'd need to police it against people literally sleeping in them or simply destroying them Or provide a social net?
- lsc 7y ago
  do you have a lot of homelessness in the thinly-populated desert?
- ac29 7y ago
  The cost is about $300k/toilet: https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/02/03/city-leaders-public-bathroom-cesar-chavez-park/ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/02/03/city-leaders-publ...
vanniv 7y ago

vincent-toups 7y ago

I think this is disingenuous - I doubt anyone who proposed letting homeless people use the restroom at Starbucks thought it was a "win win." And I doubt they represented it that way. I'm not familiar with the discourse on the subject, so I could be wrong.

bambataa 7y ago

The situation you describe and the terminology you use to describe it make your society sound broken.