5 ms·
perspective: I own a SFH in lower peninsula and have a lot of homeless near me - daily or semi-daily interactions. I'm typically YIMBY and pro-housing, though I
by gretch 5y ago
perspective: I own a SFH in lower peninsula and have a lot of homeless near me - daily or semi-daily interactions. I'm typically YIMBY and pro-housing, though I lean against homeless-specific solutions (but it's case-by-case ofc). Read the article, watched the oliver segment.
I think the problem with this angle of argument is that it pretty much solely relies on extreme empathy holding from current homeowners (aka those with power). And when that empathy is worn down, such as the example woman in the oliver segment who has to pick up human poop on a regular basis, then the argument just falls completely flat. Like it basically goes like this "Look how bad these ppl have it, don't you care?" and the answer is "No." - then what do you do? There's no avenue for follow up or iteration - you've just made a assumption just completely breaks.
You can criticize the housed-first perspectives, but at least they try to find win-win common ground between the interest of the house (not picking up human poop) and the homeless (get a home). I'm also a big fan of the tax/finance forward methods and oliver had an example during his segment of a way to save $ per homeless per year spending.
To me this article reads as the epitome of 'bleeding-heart' syndrome, and lacking critical thinking toward actual problem solving with multiple stake holder interests in play.
- ProfessorLayton 5y agoI take issue with framing homeowners as "those with power", particularly when talking about SF. Most people in SF are renters, not homeowners, and could easily overpower any self interested NIMBY homeowners... But they don't, for various reasons, but one of them is that they don't care either. Aside from housing, a lot of homeless people are in need of mental healthcare, and that's something no particular city is equipped to deal with without backing from the state.
- RC_ITR 5y agoI find it so weird that people blame homeless people for defecating on the streets. Where else can they go? One of c. 2 dozen 'pit stops' that mostly close by 8pm? That's the reason you've lost empathy for them, because they are humans who have to shit and are denied access to toilets?
- vineyardmike 5y ago> That's the reason you've lost empathy for them, because they are humans who have to shit and are denied access to toilets? Its totally fair, and expected that people lose sympathy when they have to clean up shit. Yes, if there were safe, available, places to shit then that'd be a good step to avoid this issue. But the root issue is that people no longer have sympathy because its so disruptive and so gross and has been going on for so long. > I find it so weird that people blame homeless people for defecating on the streets. They're blamed because they did it. They did it because there is no alt, but they did it, and "it" is gross and not desirable. SF has been talking about the issue for years, and its not resolved, so your tolerance and sympathy drops over time.
- RC_ITR 5y agoSure seems weird that people love babies then.
- scruple 5y agoThere's a massive gulf between the two and I expect you do know this despite the comment.
- RC_ITR 5y agoYeah, people generally choose to understand that babies can't help themselves and also choose to believe that the unhoused (literally the group with the least agency in our society) have the agency to help themselves. EDIT: To be clear. I realize shit is gross. It's the most toxic thing a human regularly encounters. But the implication of the grossness of shit being a 'bright red line' for lost empathy is that no reasonable human would EVER deal with someone else's shit, when that is demonstrably untrue. We choose to empathize with babies and not homeless people. That's fine, I guess, but feels sort of gross on the cosmic scale.
- bingbingbong 5y ago