5 ms·

Enforcing basic property rights is a good start. “I’m sorry sir or madam, but this is some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world, and you may no

Enforcing basic property rights is a good start. “I’m sorry sir or madam, but this is some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world, and you may not just pitch a tent here on the sidewalk. If you refuse to remove yourself then we will remove you.”As you say, this is not a total solution to the larger problem, but it’s a start. Any difficult problem needs to be broken down into pieces and analyzed piece by piece, and I posit that this is the clear and obvious part of any serious solution. Logically, I can only see two other possibilities. 1) We solve homelessness and criminality once and for all, such that nobody would even attempt to pitch a tent on property that isn’t theirs without permission, or else would willingly remove themselves once their error were pointed out to them. I hold that this is impossible, and though we should always strive for perfection, we must recognize and account for our limitations. 2) We keep the status quo, where vagrants are not forcibly removed and instead are allowed to live dispersed throughout the city. If I’m missing another possibility here, then somebody please point it out to me. Note that I’m purposefully leaving out any discussion of where those that are forced to leave should go, which admittedly must be a part of any solution but is not the part that I’m interested in for now. Additionally I accept that there is plenty to debate regarding precisely how enforced removal should be carried out; for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that everyone should be given fair warning and a chance to leave at their own accord, and violent force should be kept strictly to what’s minimally necessary to enforce the rules. Am I wrong to think that enforced removal is necessary to any serious solution? And if so, can somebody explain to me why I’ve never heard of a “progressive” solution that grants this point and incorporates it into its plan?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ashtonkem 5y ago
> “I’m sorry sir or madam, but this is some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world, and you may not just pitch a tent here on the sidewalk. If you refuse to remove yourself then we will remove you.” I mean, this is what they do in a lot of cities (albeit not San Francisco), except it’s usually far less polite than this. It’s not uncommon to see LAPD breaking up homeless camps and destroying their possessions (funny how selective property rights are), and it’s not exactly fixed the problem in LA. At best it tends to push them towards cities that’ll not abuse them arbitrarily, at least until the voters in that area vote in a police chief that’ll be “tough on crime” and they’re turned out, repeating the cycle. > Am I wrong to think that enforced removal is necessary to any serious solution? Yes, because it’s what we’ve been trying for about half a century and it has failed miserably. At best it results in us playing hot potato with them between different cities. At worst it involves illegal application of state violence against the poor and powerless. It’s genuinely hard for me to understand how “enforced removal” could possibly be seen as a solution for homelessness. Maybe if your goal is to stop seeing the problem, perhaps. But it’s not exactly a solution; are the homeless going to stop being homeless after you’ve “removed” them? Or are they just going to be dumped somewhere else after getting roughed up by the cops a bit? > If I’m missing another possibility here, then somebody please point it out to me. Note that I’m purposefully leaving out any discussion of where those that are forced to leave should go, which admittedly must be a part of any solution but is not the part that I’m interested in for now. There’s a good reason why I accuse a lot of people of not actually wanting to solve the problem, but rather make it happen out of sight. It’s rare to have someone say it so nakedly though. Maybe you should focus less on where they should go, and more on rehabilitating as many of them as possible back into society? If they had homes in which to secure their possessions, maybe fewer of them would feel the need to camp out on the property you seem so concerned about? Or better yet we can take a look at what policy changes have caused the homeless population to grow and change those, so that fewer of our fellow human beings end up on the street? Just a thought.
nradov 5y ago
Police will generally enforce private property rights by forcibly removing trespassers (although it sometimes takes a while). The problem is that homeless people usually occupy public property. Police can prevent them from doing certain things like blocking sidewalks but otherwise they have the same legal right to be on public property as anyone else.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Even for occupation of public property, the application of state power is extremely selective. Abandon or live in a beat to shit tent on public property, get arrested and have your private property destroyed by the state. Leave a $50,000 BMW in a bike lane because you're too self important to find a legal parking spot, and at best you'll get a ticket. Most of the time you might not even get that much. The fact that only one of these will be on the receiving end of state violence really underscores how little the excuse of "you're occupying public property" has with the expected outcome.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ashtonkem 5y ago

> “I’m sorry sir or madam, but this is some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world, and you may not just pitch a tent here on the sidewalk. If you refuse to remove yourself then we will remove you.” I mean, this is what they do in a lot of cities (albeit not San Francisco), except it’s usually far less polite than this. It’s not uncommon to see LAPD breaking up homeless camps and destroying their possessions (funny how selective property rights are), and it’s not exactly fixed the problem in LA. At best it tends to push them towards cities that’ll not abuse them arbitrarily, at least until the voters in that area vote in a police chief that’ll be “tough on crime” and they’re turned out, repeating the cycle. > Am I wrong to think that enforced removal is necessary to any serious solution? Yes, because it’s what we’ve been trying for about half a century and it has failed miserably. At best it results in us playing hot potato with them between different cities. At worst it involves illegal application of state violence against the poor and powerless. It’s genuinely hard for me to understand how “enforced removal” could possibly be seen as a solution for homelessness. Maybe if your goal is to stop seeing the problem, perhaps. But it’s not exactly a solution; are the homeless going to stop being homeless after you’ve “removed” them? Or are they just going to be dumped somewhere else after getting roughed up by the cops a bit? > If I’m missing another possibility here, then somebody please point it out to me. Note that I’m purposefully leaving out any discussion of where those that are forced to leave should go, which admittedly must be a part of any solution but is not the part that I’m interested in for now. There’s a good reason why I accuse a lot of people of not actually wanting to solve the problem, but rather make it happen out of sight. It’s rare to have someone say it so nakedly though. Maybe you should focus less on where they should go, and more on rehabilitating as many of them as possible back into society? If they had homes in which to secure their possessions, maybe fewer of them would feel the need to camp out on the property you seem so concerned about? Or better yet we can take a look at what policy changes have caused the homeless population to grow and change those, so that fewer of our fellow human beings end up on the street? Just a thought.

nradov 5y ago

Police will generally enforce private property rights by forcibly removing trespassers (although it sometimes takes a while). The problem is that homeless people usually occupy public property. Police can prevent them from doing certain things like blocking sidewalks but otherwise they have the same legal right to be on public property as anyone else.

ashtonkem 5y ago
Even for occupation of public property, the application of state power is extremely selective. Abandon or live in a beat to shit tent on public property, get arrested and have your private property destroyed by the state. Leave a $50,000 BMW in a bike lane because you're too self important to find a legal parking spot, and at best you'll get a ticket. Most of the time you might not even get that much. The fact that only one of these will be on the receiving end of state violence really underscores how little the excuse of "you're occupying public property" has with the expected outcome.