5 ms·

I think that camping should be legitimized and allowed. For example, I saw in LA camping areas being cleaned by city workers peacefully (with a token police ca

I think that camping should be legitimized and allowed. For example, I saw in LA camping areas being cleaned by city workers peacefully (with a token police car watching over) and it seemed like a nice middle ground.

mulmen 5y ago
Do you mean dedicated camping areas or putting tents in existing public parks? Something like https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ but for tents?
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  Honestly, I don't know exactly. I haven't thought this through in detail. I just think that living without being involved with a building and such is valid, and I'd like to see it recognized. I believe in harmonious co-existence, so I guess I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way", which is what I've practiced for lack of a better option, though I usually don't use a tent in the city. I think it is legitimate and valid for an individual to exist and live without being involved in paperwork, joining some kind of program, etc. And I support anyone going that way.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    > I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way" I think that's a reasonable take. I don't think that living in a public park is a valid lifestyle choice. Those places can't serve their purpose as public areas for recreation if they are also someone's home. I understand that people do it now because they are desperate. We should provide them with better options. Or at least acceptable options that allow the rest of the citizens of the city to also live their lives. I am not opposed to dedicated property or areas for tent living, but it can't be in existing parks or other public spaces like sidewalks and transit facilities. And there have to be amenities such as showers, bathrooms and trash service. Essentially a state campground in the city.
    - forgotmypw17 5y ago
      I don't think mandating what's valid and not valid on public areas is valid. How is "recreation" any more valid than "sleeping"?
      - mulmen 5y ago
        That’s disingenuous. I’m not opposed to sleeping in parks. Like, sure, take a nap. But no, you can’t live there. Take a look at the homeless camps in Seattle parks and greenbelts. That’s not staying out of anyone’s way. There’s nothing harmonious about it. Basic services are mandatory in camping areas. Without bathrooms we get human waste accumulation and runoff. Without trash service we get fires. This isn’t hypothetical. Go look around Seattle. Dictating what is done with public spaces is absolutely valid. That is how civilization works. It’s why we even have public spaces. Without rules on what’s allowed in parks they’d be developed into something else.
        forgotmypw17 5y ago
        >But no, you can’t live there. What do you think gives you the right to make that call?
        mulmen 5y ago
        Democracy.
        forgotmypw17 5y ago
        Is that when the majority decides for everyone?
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > I believe in harmonious co-existence, so I guess I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way", which is what I've practiced for lack of a better option, though I usually don't use a tent in the city. There's a city in the Vancouver area which has a radically different approach, that I'd describe as YIMFY. Food bank, needle exchange, shelters, etc are in an otherwise affluent part of town (not coincidentally, there's a police precinct right there too). They don't want to hide the homeless, they want to keep an eye on the problem. And by keeping it in the public view, voters consistently fund the programs to get people help.

mulmen 5y ago

Do you mean dedicated camping areas or putting tents in existing public parks? Something like https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ but for tents?

forgotmypw17 5y ago
Honestly, I don't know exactly. I haven't thought this through in detail. I just think that living without being involved with a building and such is valid, and I'd like to see it recognized. I believe in harmonious co-existence, so I guess I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way", which is what I've practiced for lack of a better option, though I usually don't use a tent in the city. I think it is legitimate and valid for an individual to exist and live without being involved in paperwork, joining some kind of program, etc. And I support anyone going that way.
- mulmen 5y ago
  > I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way" I think that's a reasonable take. I don't think that living in a public park is a valid lifestyle choice. Those places can't serve their purpose as public areas for recreation if they are also someone's home. I understand that people do it now because they are desperate. We should provide them with better options. Or at least acceptable options that allow the rest of the citizens of the city to also live their lives. I am not opposed to dedicated property or areas for tent living, but it can't be in existing parks or other public spaces like sidewalks and transit facilities. And there have to be amenities such as showers, bathrooms and trash service. Essentially a state campground in the city.
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    I don't think mandating what's valid and not valid on public areas is valid. How is "recreation" any more valid than "sleeping"?
    - mulmen 5y ago
      That’s disingenuous. I’m not opposed to sleeping in parks. Like, sure, take a nap. But no, you can’t live there. Take a look at the homeless camps in Seattle parks and greenbelts. That’s not staying out of anyone’s way. There’s nothing harmonious about it. Basic services are mandatory in camping areas. Without bathrooms we get human waste accumulation and runoff. Without trash service we get fires. This isn’t hypothetical. Go look around Seattle. Dictating what is done with public spaces is absolutely valid. That is how civilization works. It’s why we even have public spaces. Without rules on what’s allowed in parks they’d be developed into something else.
      - forgotmypw17 5y ago
        >But no, you can’t live there. What do you think gives you the right to make that call?
        mulmen 5y ago
        Democracy.
        forgotmypw17 5y ago
        Is that when the majority decides for everyone?
- klyrs 5y ago
  > I believe in harmonious co-existence, so I guess I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way", which is what I've practiced for lack of a better option, though I usually don't use a tent in the city. There's a city in the Vancouver area which has a radically different approach, that I'd describe as YIMFY. Food bank, needle exchange, shelters, etc are in an otherwise affluent part of town (not coincidentally, there's a police precinct right there too). They don't want to hide the homeless, they want to keep an eye on the problem. And by keeping it in the public view, voters consistently fund the programs to get people help.