9 ms·

So, I like this, and enjoy neighborhoods (usually in old inner cities) which approach this, but one thing I don't see often acknowledged, is the difficulties of

So, I like this, and enjoy neighborhoods (usually in old inner cities) which approach this, but one thing I don't see often acknowledged, is the difficulties of homelessness for this concept. People often don't like to say it out loud, but one of the principal drivers of the urge to retreat inside your car, is the fact that it puts a barrier between you and the crazy guy shouting on the streetcorner. We have not yet found a system that effectively removes the angry shouting, or urinating, or otherwise crazy-acting person from the sidewalk, or bus, or urban train, that is not uncomfortably close to a police state. Not saying it cannot be done, I'm sure it can, but I haven't seen it. One of the principal obstacles to any pilot plan of this sort, is that it is a magnet to those people who don't get social interaction any other way (because few people wish to be around them), so it is at risk of being descended on. Plus, some people (the sort who otherwise are quite in favor of public transport in the abstract) don't want to be thick-skinned enough to deal with even one such person. Me, I'm kind of a jerk, so I don't mind; it's all part of the human experience. I have the ability to tell such a person that I'm not talking to them today (unless I am), without being wracked with guilt for the rest of the week. But a lot of people (who otherwise would be in favor of this idea) just cannot (or do not wish to) be thick-skinned enough to cope with this.

graeme 6y ago
I live in a neighbourhood that’s super walkable with a ton of commercial street mixed with residences. The homeless only congregate at one small area. It isn’t really an issue. There are tons of commercial streets and only so many homeless. But when you have fewer streets, you have more homeless per street. Mind you I live in Montreal, Canada. Things may be different in the US. In particular the bay area.
- mycologos 6y ago
  > Mind you I live in Montreal, Canada. Very cold winters seem like an effective (and brutal) deterrent against long-term homelessness? Though, you say the homeless people in your area congregate in one place, do you have some idea why?
  - graeme 6y ago
    Higher foot traffic, some homeless services, maybe police action elsewhere? Specifically am referring to the plateau mont royal neighbourhood. There, the homeless congregate on mont royal avenue. It is long, has a metro station, plentiful bus routes, a monastery that provides homeless services and food, a library across from the metro. Lots of stores and foot traffic all throughout the day. I’m in Halifax now for a few months and the homeless people (who congregate on spring garden) seem more aggressive for whatever reason. In Montreal they were never a bother. There were definitely long term homeless as I saw many of the same faces over the years. Could be a lower number, but I think part of the issue is shelter. For instance SF has no more homeless per capita than NYC, but they have a massively higher number of unsheltered homeless, which causes a lot of problems both for the city and for the homeless. But NYC also has many more “homeless amenable” areas than a place like SF, which has a fairly small walkable area. My central point is if you built like Montreal and NYC then the entire city is walkable and the problem is less concentrated and thus much less bothersome. (There are homeless elsewhere in Montreal. But in my specific neighbourhood only one street has them)
    - 908B64B197 6y ago
      > I’m in Halifax now for a few months and the homeless people (who congregate on spring garden) seem more aggressive for whatever reason. In Montreal they were never a bother. It's a different society. Spent a little bit of time in Montreal. Used to think only the language was different but it goes much much deeper.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    That's where the services for the homeless are. Why bother walking all over the city when the drop-in shelter is right there with your social housing waitlist ticket?
- vecinu 6y ago
  > Mind you I live in Montreal, Canada. Things may be different in the US. In particular the bay area. It's difficult to compare these places, when I lived in Toronto the homeless situation was nothing like what I saw in downtown SF, even around Bloor & Yonge at night. You'll find the situation is much more grim in the US in major cities and exactly like the OP describes. It affected me slowly over the years, I'm still recovering.
  - graeme 6y ago
    True I remember visiting Pittsburgh and staying in this gentrifying neighbourhood across the street. It was an odd mix of upscale bars, luxury cars and run down shops and homeless people everywhere. I had to go into a hospital to have my eye looked at and was shocked at the appearance of those there. I’d never seen such bad teeth in Canada or disheveled people in the waiting room. Of all races I might add. And it was definitely unsettling, I had a man follow me from the bridge back towards my neighbourhood at night. But, I also note that Pittsburgh has relatively few such walkable neighbourhoods (though it is much better than the Us average!). If it was more like NYC or Montreal the homeless population would be more diffuse. I’ve been to NYC a bunch and it always feels much safer. Not only were there fewer homeless per street corner, but there are always large amounts of normal people walking around, so you feel safe with numbers. (To be clear, other than the one person following me, I felt safe in Pittsburgh. The ones in the neighbourhood I was in were not aggressive. But it was different than Canada or NYC in that they were much of the foot traffic)
    - dcolkitt 6y ago
      NYC has spent decades bribing its homeless residents to relocate to other states[1]. Not every city has a giant tax base of hedge fund managers and Goldman Sachs executives that gives them the luxury of simply paying to have their homeless problem sent away. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/12/03/new-york-is-shipping-its-homeless-squalid-housing-out-state-newark-lawsuit-claims/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/12/03/new-york-...
      - 6y ago
- rory 6y ago
  This would probably be the case for the imagined suburban neighborhoods in the article. Select cities in the USA (notably NYC and LA, perhaps SF as well) have disproportionate homeless population because people travel there to live a homeless lifestyle. I personally know people who moved hundreds of miles away to one of these cities for easy access to drugs and opportunities for prostitution. Your average walkable suburban center would likely have a pretty limited homeless population, and locals would be familiar enough with them to recognize whether or not they are a potential threat.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
Along the same line, the issues get worse if you are a woman. A lot of my female friends have concerns of people trying to grope them on public transport, or men making catcalls or wolf-whistles or otherwise harassing them as they walk. One of the nice things about being in your own car, is you generally don't have to deal with kind of stuff.
- rossdavidh 6y ago
  I agree that there are a lot more women who feel threatened than men, perhaps for good reason.
oetnxkdrlgcexu 6y ago
This problem has its roots in deinstitutionalization. Many centuries were spent building a social system of asylums to house people incapable of participating in society for one reason or another. However, the absolute power of the asylum operators over their charges inevitably lead to gross abuses which caused the entire centuries-old system to be abolished and replaced with nothing. I have no idea what could possibly be a solution here. There will probably always be some number of people incapable of reasonable self care. There is also no system honest enough to be trusted to have absolute power over the lives of dependent others. This problem seems intractable.
- jandrese 6y ago
  It wasn't replaced with "nothing" because the problem is still there and needed to be handled. Since no better solution was given it was defaulted to the police. But the police are trained to handle criminals, so they end up treating homelessness like a crime. This is what people talk about when they say defund the police. They want to downsize police to the point where they only deal with crime and use the freed up funds to run mental health centers, halfway houses, drug treatment centers, etc...
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    The police are "nothing" - they are the default handlers of antisocial behavior, but in no way are they mental heath specialists. wrt mental health centers: what happens when people don't want to go to those places? Either they'll be in exactly the same position of being handled by the police, or the police will be too busy in which case the public will suffer (which usually changes the electorate opinion on matters).
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Or, and this is a controversial view, maybe some homeless people could be helped through cheaper access to cars. As part of my job I have recently sat through many days of cases at a local courthouse. In our rural area, judges are loathed to revoke a driver's license because they know that doing so renders a person effectively unemployable locally. If someone doesn't have access to a car, and therefore cannot find work, perhaps there is a place for giving them better access to a car. (Anyone saying that the answer is better public transport, that isn't an option here. Rural area. Most work is in farms/oil fields/military. 24/7 bus service over thousands of square miles just isn't ever going to happen. No car or no cellphone = No work.)
lsy 6y ago
Leaving aside the politics of whether we should care for the less-fortunate, I think this is only a problem of perspective and not of reality. In practice, there is safety in numbers, so cities with more people walking, out and about, tend to be safer (and feel safer for residents). When everyone retreats to a car, the street becomes a place that you shield yourself from, and disengage from, thus making the street feel less safe, and encouraging more people to use cars. Encouraging walkability and transit improves the sense of safety on streets, but it takes the willpower to do it in the face of what is essentially a panic response.
- asdff 6y ago
  Safety in numbers doesn't apply today anymore. When someone goes batshit crazy on my train saying something racist or rapey, everyone else in the crowded car goes silent and tries not to make eye contact with the crazy person. We live in a world where anyone might be carrying a gun, drugs in their veins, or a bloodborne disease, so no one is intervening for anything unless it's their kin on the line. The street can be a scary place if you are one to be stalked by these sort of people. I've known several people who have been stalked to and from public transport and their house in this city. It's dangerous if you are a woman and walking alone, legitimately.
  - lettergram 6y ago
    Idk where you live, but often places where carrying a gun is normal is far less like that. Women often carry weapons when possible (you probably just don’t know). You’re far less concerned about being stalked when you have protection. Personally, I’m far more willing to intervene or suggest someone to stop something when I am carrying a weapon. You can protect yourself so you’re willing to say “hey man, let’s not scream on the bus”
    - ACow_Adonis 6y ago
      ok, idk where you live either, but I think we've got the reverse correlation in the world: those places in the world where people are likely to be caring guns are far less likely to have successful public transport systems, and the few they do have tend to be disproportionately used by the poor and destitute. the other obvious problem would be, presumably, that if it's genuine 'crazyness' that you're concerned with, as opposed to anti-social behaviour or drugs that tend to accompany the lack of social capital and safety nets in the US, then a gun wouldn't actually be a disincentive. on the other hand, I'm surprised how people don't vote road rage or idiots behind the wheel as arguments against car driving. For a tragically relevant example of genuine crazy behind the wheel: see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_Melbourne_car_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_Melbourne_car_a... obviously then you've also got the downside of living in the area with guns. see gun death, murder, and car death/injury stats in US vs elsewhere, for example. disclaimer: I live in the green areas mentioned in article, don't own a car.
DoreenMichele 6y ago
I was homeless for several years and I also have had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy long before that. I still write about homelessness. I got myself off the street by moving into a cheap, small rental in a walkable neighborhood where my life works without a car. The need to own a car in the US is part of the burden that helps push some people out into the street. If we had more walkable neighborhoods where more people could make their life work without a car, that would help prevent homelessness for people who are currently at risk. In the US, we straight up just need more housing. We have underbuilt for a long time and that helps push costs up. We also need more small-ish scale housing in walkable neighborhoods. We have largely zoned those out of existence. One reason crazy homeless people gravitate to big cities is because that's where they can get services. If you generally help people make their lives work across the US, then you would likely see less of this pattern.
- mjevans 6y ago
  Better social safety nets are also required. I have heard that it isn't uncommon for someone who's on the street to have mental health issues which are untreated by society. In the US this seems to have been the result of replacing one hell for the unfortunate (abusive mental 'health' jails) with an even greater hell of apathy (nothing at all).
  - nullserver 6y ago
    Have a pair of uncommon disease. Between them, I was losing my mind. Was very close to being on the street when I finally got a correct diagnosis. Got treatment, and my mind cleared up. It wasn’t a mental condition, but every doctor wanted to treat it that way. This was with great insurance and lots of money. Doctors just don’t like complex cases.
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    My ex worked with homeless people and was frustrated that so little could be done for them. One of the biggest obstacles was outright refusal to seek or accept any form of mental health care, even though many programs exist for them. There is a pervasive fear of being locked up in a psych ward, and those who do get medicine (via Medicaid or other assistance programs) stop taking it, because treatments for severe issues usually have very unpleasant side effects. It can take weeks of trial and error to find something that works, and all that time you are somewhere between a zombie and (as it was described to me) like going through pregnancy without the baby. You either force people into care, or accept that many will scratch out a living on charity and trash without getting mental care. There isn't a middle ground between forcing and not forcing people to change.
abstractbarista 6y ago
There's a certain city in central NC that I generally avoid because of this aspect. Every time I've visited friends there, I was asked for money in a confrontational manner. Every time I've left my car, it seemed reasonable to expect vandalism or a break-in upon returning. (I'm not a flashy person. I drive a 12 year old Civic. I keep nothing valuable in the cabin. I keep to myself.) After a few of these negative interactions, I decided to generally avoid visiting ever again. It's not that I have a problem dealing with it: It's very easy to say no, or to run if needed. It's that I simply shouldn't have to deal with this BS in the first place! Please, just leave me alone! I'm leaving you alone. In places like this, I lock the doors upon entering the car. Depending on location, I also keep the engine running, in case the car must be used in an evasive or defensive manner. (People have tried my door handles while stopped at lights, so the car is set to lock when driving too.) Be aware of your surroundings, and casually pay attention to how people are watching you. I am very glad to live in a different nearby city, in a more sprawling area, that has much less of this activity. Due to the sprawl, it is not nearly as economically motivating for trolls to congregate.
- rory 6y ago
  So specific to not just say the city haha. Let me guess, you're talking about Raleigh and you live in either Durham or Cary?
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    is raleigh really that bad? it seemed quite nice when I visited.
    - rory 6y ago
      I don't mean to imply that, it is a nice city. The parent is actually more likely referring to a city further west.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  Theft is a problem. Car thefts are way up in Denver, stealing catalytic converters. But is being asked for money really that horrible? A lot of people are suffering, even if dope sick that's torture and money would fix it. I guess depends how 'confrontational' but I've noticed those who treat these humans as less than, that's where the most problems are. An example, contractor who did my bathroom. The contractor stopped at a stop light with tents and he started taking pictures (in the posting to fb as a meme type of way). And he got accosted for it. I don't feel too bad for him - it's not a freaking zoo. Those are the type of people who attract bad confrontations in my experience. most people won't even make eye contact or smile. That goes such a long way. I can't imagine being in that position, it'd be like some sick twilight zone, everyone looking away you. For sure though there are a small % of just mentally unstable, tweakers, etc. But easily over 95% of the unhoused people I've talked to or walk by are nice, real humans. I tend to nod, give any extra change or food. I've also had similar positive encounters in much bigger cities like London too. A counter example, Paris has more pick pocketer types who are far too invasive/physically grabbing. But flat out crime is different than what I'm talking about.
fatnoah 6y ago
>People often don't like to say it out loud, but one of the principal drivers of the urge to retreat inside your car, is the fact that it puts a barrier between you and the crazy guy shouting on the streetcorner As a former, long-time resident of an older inner city, I can say that not a single person I've ever encountered has made vehicle trips to avoid homeless people. Convenience, time to destination, and other concerns "drive" these decisions. For anything within that 10 minute radius, everyone walks. It's simply more efficient than driving.
- munificent 6y ago
  > I can say that not a single person I've ever encountered has made vehicle trips to avoid homeless people. I can think of many times where people I know have chosen to drive to avoid homelessness problems (or, more specifically homeless unstable drug addict problems).
- anonfornoreason 6y ago
  I literally just moved out of a west coast city due to the homelessness problem, and homeless camps changed my commute habits on bike and foot. While I am OK going by a homeless camp on bike/foot solo, I stopped taking my family through them after some sketchy encounters. I was lucky that I didn't need to change my bike commute with my kid due to camps, but that was because I could take some alternate routes to his school. If I wanted to completely avoid homeless camps on my bike commute, I would have had to increase my commute distance by about 30%. Not only that, but it's whack-a-mole. The smaller camps move around alot. Also as a bicyclist, you notice that the bike lanes are problematic near any campsites due to broken glass and needles. I am positive many people consider this when deciding whether to start or to continue being a bike commuter, at least in west coast cities with big homeless populations. I know many people that still live in the city, and people that moved away. Of my coworkers, all but one with kids moved out of the city when we went full remote, all cited homelessness and school quality as the top two issues. Homelessness is absolutely a big deal when making livable neighborhoods that people want to be in, whether or not you can find ways to "make it work" is beside the point.
  - 6y ago
barry27 6y ago
rossdavidh you clearly ARE kind of a jerk. Your reaction to this piece is simply to whine about homeless people? You should definitely remain in the suburbs, shuttling back and forth in your cone of security.
clairity 6y ago
> "We have not yet found a system that effectively removes the angry shouting, or urinating, or otherwise crazy-acting person from the sidewalk, or bus, or urban train, that is not uncomfortably close to a police state." you're advocating unnecessary force. it wouldn't just be uncomfortably close, it would be a police state, where force is used to gain compliance and instill arbitrary order. mincing words like this is an attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance (i'm a good person so i'd never advocate a police state!). it's the same coercive impulse that gives us poor policy decisions to all sorts of non-obvious situations, including this pandemic. when faced with a "crazy" person, it'd be better to control your own fears and realize that that person is quite unlikely to be a threat to you. control yourself, not others, and default to compassion and humility under uncertainty. being fearful is nearly as bad as being belligerent, in that they both serve to distance and disconnect us from our humanity.
- common_crow 6y ago
  >you're advocating unnecessary force. I don't think this was the intent of the comment you're replying to. Personally, I interpreted their position as exactly the opposite: they're very anti-unnecessary force, and frustrated that we can't implement a compassionate system to deal with the problems at hand. > when faced with a "crazy" person, it'd be better to control your own fears and realize that that person is quite unlikely to be a threat to you. control yourself, not others, and default to compassion and humility under uncertainty. As a woman, I appreciate the empathy here, but question the logic. I cannot "control" the fact that I have breasts. The multiple times I've been agressively groped by homeless men has been entirely out of my control. The threats of assault I've received when ignoring catcalls were also out of my control (and luckily the homeless man who charged at me and threatened to stab me was held back by a good samaritan, because I assure you, that situation was entirely out of my control.) Homeless people are harmless 99% of the time. But when you pass 100 homeless people every day, that 1% genuinely does matter.
  - nullserver 6y ago
    I’m a big beefy man. Lived in a bad area. Got the meanest looking dog. A few times that dog definitely stopped things from escalating. My daughters get lots of lectures on the topic of having a dog or being with a group. My oldest adult daughter kept thinking I was stupid and paranoid. Until a group of men tried to force her into a van. So yeah...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tomaskafka 6y ago
> We have not yet found a system that effectively removes the angry shouting, or urinating, or otherwise crazy-acting person from the sidewalk, or bus, or urban train, that is not uncomfortably close to a police state. Huh. The whole damn Europe. You 'remove' then by having a safety net. Which is one of a few things I'm really glad to pay taxes for.
- refurb 6y ago
  Clearly not as Canada has a massive homelessness issue in Vancouver and a strong safety net.
  - TimJRobinson 6y ago
    Canada's safety net is better than the USA but it's not as good as many places in Europe. I lived in Amsterdam for a year and in that time saw maybe 2 homeless people. One law they had was if a building has been empty for over a year you're legally allowed to squat there and the owner has to go through a lengthy process to evict. This stops people buying investment property and leaving it empty. If this was on Vancouver it would have massively helped their housing problem as all those apartments used for offshore assets could be used by squatters (though this would bring its own set of issues).
    - refurb 6y ago
      You’re saying there are less homeless on the streets of Amsterdam because they squat in empty houses?
jdavis703 6y ago
Suburban areas are not free of homeless people merely because of zoning. The suburbs have a police state that harasses, tickets, fines and/or arrests people for homeless activities like illegal camping, being parked too long, public urination and panhandling. Big cities tend to be more permissive (or the police are focused on bigger crimes).
- bquest2 6y ago
  Well I definitely don't want to live somewhere where there's bigger crimes...

graeme 6y ago

I live in a neighbourhood that’s super walkable with a ton of commercial street mixed with residences. The homeless only congregate at one small area. It isn’t really an issue. There are tons of commercial streets and only so many homeless. But when you have fewer streets, you have more homeless per street. Mind you I live in Montreal, Canada. Things may be different in the US. In particular the bay area.

mycologos 6y ago
> Mind you I live in Montreal, Canada. Very cold winters seem like an effective (and brutal) deterrent against long-term homelessness? Though, you say the homeless people in your area congregate in one place, do you have some idea why?
- graeme 6y ago
  Higher foot traffic, some homeless services, maybe police action elsewhere? Specifically am referring to the plateau mont royal neighbourhood. There, the homeless congregate on mont royal avenue. It is long, has a metro station, plentiful bus routes, a monastery that provides homeless services and food, a library across from the metro. Lots of stores and foot traffic all throughout the day. I’m in Halifax now for a few months and the homeless people (who congregate on spring garden) seem more aggressive for whatever reason. In Montreal they were never a bother. There were definitely long term homeless as I saw many of the same faces over the years. Could be a lower number, but I think part of the issue is shelter. For instance SF has no more homeless per capita than NYC, but they have a massively higher number of unsheltered homeless, which causes a lot of problems both for the city and for the homeless. But NYC also has many more “homeless amenable” areas than a place like SF, which has a fairly small walkable area. My central point is if you built like Montreal and NYC then the entire city is walkable and the problem is less concentrated and thus much less bothersome. (There are homeless elsewhere in Montreal. But in my specific neighbourhood only one street has them)
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    > I’m in Halifax now for a few months and the homeless people (who congregate on spring garden) seem more aggressive for whatever reason. In Montreal they were never a bother. It's a different society. Spent a little bit of time in Montreal. Used to think only the language was different but it goes much much deeper.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  That's where the services for the homeless are. Why bother walking all over the city when the drop-in shelter is right there with your social housing waitlist ticket?
vecinu 6y ago
> Mind you I live in Montreal, Canada. Things may be different in the US. In particular the bay area. It's difficult to compare these places, when I lived in Toronto the homeless situation was nothing like what I saw in downtown SF, even around Bloor & Yonge at night. You'll find the situation is much more grim in the US in major cities and exactly like the OP describes. It affected me slowly over the years, I'm still recovering.
- graeme 6y ago
  True I remember visiting Pittsburgh and staying in this gentrifying neighbourhood across the street. It was an odd mix of upscale bars, luxury cars and run down shops and homeless people everywhere. I had to go into a hospital to have my eye looked at and was shocked at the appearance of those there. I’d never seen such bad teeth in Canada or disheveled people in the waiting room. Of all races I might add. And it was definitely unsettling, I had a man follow me from the bridge back towards my neighbourhood at night. But, I also note that Pittsburgh has relatively few such walkable neighbourhoods (though it is much better than the Us average!). If it was more like NYC or Montreal the homeless population would be more diffuse. I’ve been to NYC a bunch and it always feels much safer. Not only were there fewer homeless per street corner, but there are always large amounts of normal people walking around, so you feel safe with numbers. (To be clear, other than the one person following me, I felt safe in Pittsburgh. The ones in the neighbourhood I was in were not aggressive. But it was different than Canada or NYC in that they were much of the foot traffic)
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    NYC has spent decades bribing its homeless residents to relocate to other states[1]. Not every city has a giant tax base of hedge fund managers and Goldman Sachs executives that gives them the luxury of simply paying to have their homeless problem sent away. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/12/03/new-york-is-shipping-its-homeless-squalid-housing-out-state-newark-lawsuit-claims/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/12/03/new-york-...
    - 6y ago
rory 6y ago
This would probably be the case for the imagined suburban neighborhoods in the article. Select cities in the USA (notably NYC and LA, perhaps SF as well) have disproportionate homeless population because people travel there to live a homeless lifestyle. I personally know people who moved hundreds of miles away to one of these cities for easy access to drugs and opportunities for prostitution. Your average walkable suburban center would likely have a pretty limited homeless population, and locals would be familiar enough with them to recognize whether or not they are a potential threat.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

Along the same line, the issues get worse if you are a woman. A lot of my female friends have concerns of people trying to grope them on public transport, or men making catcalls or wolf-whistles or otherwise harassing them as they walk. One of the nice things about being in your own car, is you generally don't have to deal with kind of stuff.

rossdavidh 6y ago
I agree that there are a lot more women who feel threatened than men, perhaps for good reason.

oetnxkdrlgcexu 6y ago

This problem has its roots in deinstitutionalization. Many centuries were spent building a social system of asylums to house people incapable of participating in society for one reason or another. However, the absolute power of the asylum operators over their charges inevitably lead to gross abuses which caused the entire centuries-old system to be abolished and replaced with nothing. I have no idea what could possibly be a solution here. There will probably always be some number of people incapable of reasonable self care. There is also no system honest enough to be trusted to have absolute power over the lives of dependent others. This problem seems intractable.

jandrese 6y ago
It wasn't replaced with "nothing" because the problem is still there and needed to be handled. Since no better solution was given it was defaulted to the police. But the police are trained to handle criminals, so they end up treating homelessness like a crime. This is what people talk about when they say defund the police. They want to downsize police to the point where they only deal with crime and use the freed up funds to run mental health centers, halfway houses, drug treatment centers, etc...
- Chris2048 6y ago
  The police are "nothing" - they are the default handlers of antisocial behavior, but in no way are they mental heath specialists. wrt mental health centers: what happens when people don't want to go to those places? Either they'll be in exactly the same position of being handled by the police, or the police will be too busy in which case the public will suffer (which usually changes the electorate opinion on matters).
sandworm101 6y ago
Or, and this is a controversial view, maybe some homeless people could be helped through cheaper access to cars. As part of my job I have recently sat through many days of cases at a local courthouse. In our rural area, judges are loathed to revoke a driver's license because they know that doing so renders a person effectively unemployable locally. If someone doesn't have access to a car, and therefore cannot find work, perhaps there is a place for giving them better access to a car. (Anyone saying that the answer is better public transport, that isn't an option here. Rural area. Most work is in farms/oil fields/military. 24/7 bus service over thousands of square miles just isn't ever going to happen. No car or no cellphone = No work.)

lsy 6y ago

Leaving aside the politics of whether we should care for the less-fortunate, I think this is only a problem of perspective and not of reality. In practice, there is safety in numbers, so cities with more people walking, out and about, tend to be safer (and feel safer for residents). When everyone retreats to a car, the street becomes a place that you shield yourself from, and disengage from, thus making the street feel less safe, and encouraging more people to use cars. Encouraging walkability and transit improves the sense of safety on streets, but it takes the willpower to do it in the face of what is essentially a panic response.

asdff 6y ago
Safety in numbers doesn't apply today anymore. When someone goes batshit crazy on my train saying something racist or rapey, everyone else in the crowded car goes silent and tries not to make eye contact with the crazy person. We live in a world where anyone might be carrying a gun, drugs in their veins, or a bloodborne disease, so no one is intervening for anything unless it's their kin on the line. The street can be a scary place if you are one to be stalked by these sort of people. I've known several people who have been stalked to and from public transport and their house in this city. It's dangerous if you are a woman and walking alone, legitimately.
- lettergram 6y ago
  Idk where you live, but often places where carrying a gun is normal is far less like that. Women often carry weapons when possible (you probably just don’t know). You’re far less concerned about being stalked when you have protection. Personally, I’m far more willing to intervene or suggest someone to stop something when I am carrying a weapon. You can protect yourself so you’re willing to say “hey man, let’s not scream on the bus”
  - ACow_Adonis 6y ago
    ok, idk where you live either, but I think we've got the reverse correlation in the world: those places in the world where people are likely to be caring guns are far less likely to have successful public transport systems, and the few they do have tend to be disproportionately used by the poor and destitute. the other obvious problem would be, presumably, that if it's genuine 'crazyness' that you're concerned with, as opposed to anti-social behaviour or drugs that tend to accompany the lack of social capital and safety nets in the US, then a gun wouldn't actually be a disincentive. on the other hand, I'm surprised how people don't vote road rage or idiots behind the wheel as arguments against car driving. For a tragically relevant example of genuine crazy behind the wheel: see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_Melbourne_car_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_Melbourne_car_a... obviously then you've also got the downside of living in the area with guns. see gun death, murder, and car death/injury stats in US vs elsewhere, for example. disclaimer: I live in the green areas mentioned in article, don't own a car.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

I was homeless for several years and I also have had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy long before that. I still write about homelessness. I got myself off the street by moving into a cheap, small rental in a walkable neighborhood where my life works without a car. The need to own a car in the US is part of the burden that helps push some people out into the street. If we had more walkable neighborhoods where more people could make their life work without a car, that would help prevent homelessness for people who are currently at risk. In the US, we straight up just need more housing. We have underbuilt for a long time and that helps push costs up. We also need more small-ish scale housing in walkable neighborhoods. We have largely zoned those out of existence. One reason crazy homeless people gravitate to big cities is because that's where they can get services. If you generally help people make their lives work across the US, then you would likely see less of this pattern.

mjevans 6y ago
Better social safety nets are also required. I have heard that it isn't uncommon for someone who's on the street to have mental health issues which are untreated by society. In the US this seems to have been the result of replacing one hell for the unfortunate (abusive mental 'health' jails) with an even greater hell of apathy (nothing at all).
- nullserver 6y ago
  Have a pair of uncommon disease. Between them, I was losing my mind. Was very close to being on the street when I finally got a correct diagnosis. Got treatment, and my mind cleared up. It wasn’t a mental condition, but every doctor wanted to treat it that way. This was with great insurance and lots of money. Doctors just don’t like complex cases.
- zdragnar 6y ago
  My ex worked with homeless people and was frustrated that so little could be done for them. One of the biggest obstacles was outright refusal to seek or accept any form of mental health care, even though many programs exist for them. There is a pervasive fear of being locked up in a psych ward, and those who do get medicine (via Medicaid or other assistance programs) stop taking it, because treatments for severe issues usually have very unpleasant side effects. It can take weeks of trial and error to find something that works, and all that time you are somewhere between a zombie and (as it was described to me) like going through pregnancy without the baby. You either force people into care, or accept that many will scratch out a living on charity and trash without getting mental care. There isn't a middle ground between forcing and not forcing people to change.

abstractbarista 6y ago

There's a certain city in central NC that I generally avoid because of this aspect. Every time I've visited friends there, I was asked for money in a confrontational manner. Every time I've left my car, it seemed reasonable to expect vandalism or a break-in upon returning. (I'm not a flashy person. I drive a 12 year old Civic. I keep nothing valuable in the cabin. I keep to myself.) After a few of these negative interactions, I decided to generally avoid visiting ever again. It's not that I have a problem dealing with it: It's very easy to say no, or to run if needed. It's that I simply shouldn't have to deal with this BS in the first place! Please, just leave me alone! I'm leaving you alone. In places like this, I lock the doors upon entering the car. Depending on location, I also keep the engine running, in case the car must be used in an evasive or defensive manner. (People have tried my door handles while stopped at lights, so the car is set to lock when driving too.) Be aware of your surroundings, and casually pay attention to how people are watching you. I am very glad to live in a different nearby city, in a more sprawling area, that has much less of this activity. Due to the sprawl, it is not nearly as economically motivating for trolls to congregate.

rory 6y ago
So specific to not just say the city haha. Let me guess, you're talking about Raleigh and you live in either Durham or Cary?
- leetcrew 6y ago
  is raleigh really that bad? it seemed quite nice when I visited.
  - rory 6y ago
    I don't mean to imply that, it is a nice city. The parent is actually more likely referring to a city further west.
dillondoyle 6y ago
Theft is a problem. Car thefts are way up in Denver, stealing catalytic converters. But is being asked for money really that horrible? A lot of people are suffering, even if dope sick that's torture and money would fix it. I guess depends how 'confrontational' but I've noticed those who treat these humans as less than, that's where the most problems are. An example, contractor who did my bathroom. The contractor stopped at a stop light with tents and he started taking pictures (in the posting to fb as a meme type of way). And he got accosted for it. I don't feel too bad for him - it's not a freaking zoo. Those are the type of people who attract bad confrontations in my experience. most people won't even make eye contact or smile. That goes such a long way. I can't imagine being in that position, it'd be like some sick twilight zone, everyone looking away you. For sure though there are a small % of just mentally unstable, tweakers, etc. But easily over 95% of the unhoused people I've talked to or walk by are nice, real humans. I tend to nod, give any extra change or food. I've also had similar positive encounters in much bigger cities like London too. A counter example, Paris has more pick pocketer types who are far too invasive/physically grabbing. But flat out crime is different than what I'm talking about.

fatnoah 6y ago

>People often don't like to say it out loud, but one of the principal drivers of the urge to retreat inside your car, is the fact that it puts a barrier between you and the crazy guy shouting on the streetcorner As a former, long-time resident of an older inner city, I can say that not a single person I've ever encountered has made vehicle trips to avoid homeless people. Convenience, time to destination, and other concerns "drive" these decisions. For anything within that 10 minute radius, everyone walks. It's simply more efficient than driving.

munificent 6y ago
> I can say that not a single person I've ever encountered has made vehicle trips to avoid homeless people. I can think of many times where people I know have chosen to drive to avoid homelessness problems (or, more specifically homeless unstable drug addict problems).
anonfornoreason 6y ago
I literally just moved out of a west coast city due to the homelessness problem, and homeless camps changed my commute habits on bike and foot. While I am OK going by a homeless camp on bike/foot solo, I stopped taking my family through them after some sketchy encounters. I was lucky that I didn't need to change my bike commute with my kid due to camps, but that was because I could take some alternate routes to his school. If I wanted to completely avoid homeless camps on my bike commute, I would have had to increase my commute distance by about 30%. Not only that, but it's whack-a-mole. The smaller camps move around alot. Also as a bicyclist, you notice that the bike lanes are problematic near any campsites due to broken glass and needles. I am positive many people consider this when deciding whether to start or to continue being a bike commuter, at least in west coast cities with big homeless populations. I know many people that still live in the city, and people that moved away. Of my coworkers, all but one with kids moved out of the city when we went full remote, all cited homelessness and school quality as the top two issues. Homelessness is absolutely a big deal when making livable neighborhoods that people want to be in, whether or not you can find ways to "make it work" is beside the point.
- 6y ago

barry27 6y ago

rossdavidh you clearly ARE kind of a jerk. Your reaction to this piece is simply to whine about homeless people? You should definitely remain in the suburbs, shuttling back and forth in your cone of security.

clairity 6y ago

> "We have not yet found a system that effectively removes the angry shouting, or urinating, or otherwise crazy-acting person from the sidewalk, or bus, or urban train, that is not uncomfortably close to a police state." you're advocating unnecessary force. it wouldn't just be uncomfortably close, it would be a police state, where force is used to gain compliance and instill arbitrary order. mincing words like this is an attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance (i'm a good person so i'd never advocate a police state!). it's the same coercive impulse that gives us poor policy decisions to all sorts of non-obvious situations, including this pandemic. when faced with a "crazy" person, it'd be better to control your own fears and realize that that person is quite unlikely to be a threat to you. control yourself, not others, and default to compassion and humility under uncertainty. being fearful is nearly as bad as being belligerent, in that they both serve to distance and disconnect us from our humanity.

common_crow 6y ago
>you're advocating unnecessary force. I don't think this was the intent of the comment you're replying to. Personally, I interpreted their position as exactly the opposite: they're very anti-unnecessary force, and frustrated that we can't implement a compassionate system to deal with the problems at hand. > when faced with a "crazy" person, it'd be better to control your own fears and realize that that person is quite unlikely to be a threat to you. control yourself, not others, and default to compassion and humility under uncertainty. As a woman, I appreciate the empathy here, but question the logic. I cannot "control" the fact that I have breasts. The multiple times I've been agressively groped by homeless men has been entirely out of my control. The threats of assault I've received when ignoring catcalls were also out of my control (and luckily the homeless man who charged at me and threatened to stab me was held back by a good samaritan, because I assure you, that situation was entirely out of my control.) Homeless people are harmless 99% of the time. But when you pass 100 homeless people every day, that 1% genuinely does matter.
- nullserver 6y ago
  I’m a big beefy man. Lived in a bad area. Got the meanest looking dog. A few times that dog definitely stopped things from escalating. My daughters get lots of lectures on the topic of having a dog or being with a group. My oldest adult daughter kept thinking I was stupid and paranoid. Until a group of men tried to force her into a van. So yeah...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tomaskafka 6y ago

> We have not yet found a system that effectively removes the angry shouting, or urinating, or otherwise crazy-acting person from the sidewalk, or bus, or urban train, that is not uncomfortably close to a police state. Huh. The whole damn Europe. You 'remove' then by having a safety net. Which is one of a few things I'm really glad to pay taxes for.

refurb 6y ago
Clearly not as Canada has a massive homelessness issue in Vancouver and a strong safety net.
- TimJRobinson 6y ago
  Canada's safety net is better than the USA but it's not as good as many places in Europe. I lived in Amsterdam for a year and in that time saw maybe 2 homeless people. One law they had was if a building has been empty for over a year you're legally allowed to squat there and the owner has to go through a lengthy process to evict. This stops people buying investment property and leaving it empty. If this was on Vancouver it would have massively helped their housing problem as all those apartments used for offshore assets could be used by squatters (though this would bring its own set of issues).
  - refurb 6y ago
    You’re saying there are less homeless on the streets of Amsterdam because they squat in empty houses?

jdavis703 6y ago

Suburban areas are not free of homeless people merely because of zoning. The suburbs have a police state that harasses, tickets, fines and/or arrests people for homeless activities like illegal camping, being parked too long, public urination and panhandling. Big cities tend to be more permissive (or the police are focused on bigger crimes).

bquest2 6y ago
Well I definitely don't want to live somewhere where there's bigger crimes...