10 ms·

I wonder if there are some folks within the city council or whatever governmental group that essentially allows people to camp / live in this area that want thi

by xt00 4y ago

I wonder if there are some folks within the city council or whatever governmental group that essentially allows people to camp / live in this area that want this to be a public eye sore to get public support to do something about it? Because if you take at face value what these folks say, they like the fact that the location is beautiful and it’s convenient for them in various ways. The same reasons members of the public would also enjoy coming to the same area but are not able to enjoy it because the area is an eye sore / does not feel safe. Caring about the homeless and allowing them to live in a gorgeous public park seems like really the only goal to allow it is to want to generate public discussion since it is so obviously unfair to people who live nearby, people who want to visit it and enjoy it, and businesses in the area that are impacted by the homeless needing bathrooms / leaving trash / causing problems (likely a small minority who cause problems but still the problems do exist let’s be real).

id 4y ago
You know what's even more unfair than you having to deal with this "eye sore"? That these people are homeless. Have some empathy. They are people, too.
- mechanical_bear 4y ago
  Why is no one ever told to have empathy for the people whose livelihoods and homes are impacted by this problem?
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    Relative impact of issues?
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    Because one group has a roof over their heads and one doesn't?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - id 4y ago
    They don't compare. One group has their homes "impacted" (they are inconvenienced by the sight of poverty), the other group doesn't have a freaking home.
    - cruano 4y ago
      > they are inconvenienced by the sight of poverty Or, you know, wake up to find shit on their driveways, smashed windows on their cars, needles thrown on the street, etc.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Rebelgecko 4y ago
      I'm assuming that you have the privilege of never living near a large homeless encampment. It really does become an all-encompassing matter for people in the area. You're reminded of it every time you breathe in air that smells like diesel and burnt aluminum foil. When you see tents at the very intersection in this article, while the bridge housing 2 blocks away has 50+ empty units due to lack of interest. Every time you go to the library and there's someone in a trenchcoat furiously masturbating. When you're followed on a bike ride by someone who runs a chop shop, looking to see if you're an easy mark. When you're walking down the street and someone screams racial slurs and threatens to kill you. Rationally you can think "that's just the mental illness or addiction causing someone to behave that way". But over time, even if you rationalize the behavior it wears down on your empathy.
  - tdfx 4y ago
    Because a certain subset of people loves to advocate for disadvantaged people so long as the personal cost to themselves is zero.
  - swearwolf 4y ago
    I think it’s for a number of reasons: 1. The limitations of the oppressed vs. oppressor view of the world, which is very popular at the moment. It takes a comfort with cognitive dissonance to accept that some haves aren’t necessarily oppressors, but it’s easy to assume that they are. See also: the scorn heaped upon small time landlords. 2. Accepting that some people will take advantage of a given situation, even homelessness, for their own gain is a very disconcerting thought if you tend towards empathy for homeless people. I struggle with accepting this myself, even though I can see it happening in front of me. 3. The bifurcation of all political ideology into Republican vs. Democrat, and the suspicion of crypto-Republicanism that is now levied at ideas outside the acceptable Overton window. 4. Bitter jealousy towards people who have managed to secure property in a desirable area that others feel locked out of due to rising costs. I used to feel this quite intensely myself.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  You know what would be great? A park with more bathrooms and safe grills in the same area for people to live in. maybe even areas where it's easy to set up a sleeping arrangement and get a little privacy. Hell, why not add some doors and walls to these little areas, and some indoor plumbing to make it sanitary. you could even go so far as to make part of the park for living, and part of it a shared recreational space for them and members of the community to comingle.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Sir, I believe you are describing an apartment complex ;)
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      Ah ha.
- tdfx 4y ago
  I'm not sure why criticizing politicians who are weaponizing homeless populations against local residents to sway public opinion is lacking empathy. If anything, it's dignifying them as people who should not be used as pawns for a political agenda.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I don't think it's unreasonable to ask: 1) How many homeless people are interested in a productive life, with the work/sobriety expectations (and the housing/benefits) that implies? 2) How many of those are actively working towards this goal? It sure seems to me that there are lots of people who want to live irresponsibly, and prey on our sympathy to facilitate that lifestyle.
  - bildung 4y ago
    > 1) How many homeless people are interested in a productive life, with the work/sobriety expectations (and the housing/benefits) that implies? Almost all, as becomes evident if you compare the drastically different homelessness rates in other countries.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      I'm not sure such comparisons control very well for climate and cultural factors.
      - bildung 4y ago
        Then just look at the distribution in the USA: Among the states with most homelessness per capita are: District of Columbia, New York, Oregon, Washington State, Alaska. Yes, also Californa, but California has most of everything, including housed people.
        swearwolf 4y ago
        Aside from D.C. and New York, these are all states within the ninth circuit court’s jurisdiction, and therefore are bound to the Martin v. Boise ruling, which allows public camping if there is not adequate shelter space available. If one part of the country allows that while the rest doesn’t, you’d expect that the homeless population will migrate over time to the more permissive area, which seems to be borne out in the growth of the homeless population on the West Coast since the ruling went into effect. Of course, we also mint plenty of new homeless ourselves with our astronomical housing costs, but I see a lot of people with out-of-state plates on the RVs they live in here in Oregon.
- asdff 4y ago
  empathy means realizing that these conditions they live in under the status quo is harmful and does not come from a place of care. I'm sure the people living in the camp think its an eyesore too and would prefer better circumstances than a nylon tent that anyone with bad intentions and a buck knife can break into.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  So invite a homeless person to live in your house with you. I bet you have a spare room or even a couch they could crash on. If everyone who accused people who complain about homeless encampments of lacking empathy did this simple thing, there would be no more homeless encampments. Have some empathy please.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lukeschlather 4y ago
There's really no conspiracy, this is the cheapest thing to do. You kick people out of the parks, they just move around and you still have basically the same problem next week. In order to permanently get people to leave you need to build semi-permanent camps. But these camps do need to be in somewhat desirable areas because the people in the camps need to live near where they can find work (many don't have cars.) You put them out in the boonies they're just going to come camp in the city because there's no jobs in the boonies and they are mostly normal people who want to find work and not have to camp in tents. Obtaining land and permitting such camps is hard. The more expensive option is building permanent housing. The most expensive option is prison.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > you need to build semi-permanent camps. Or... housing.
- pandaman 4y ago
  Check out what happened in Austin, TX. The city government proclaimed the same thing you are saying: there is no way to get rid of homeless so they allowed "city camping" in 2019. By 2020 the city of Austin had encampments under every overpass, in parks and on some major streets. But a PAC against this has been established and passed a ballot measure in 2021. The city government first ignored it (they've made up a 4-stage plan to implement it where each stage consisted of asking homeless not to camp) but the PAC stuck around and kept engaging the city in the courts and pushing other measures on the ballot. This caused a real fear of losing for the current mayor and city council so suddenly they've found a way to get rid of all the camps. Where there is a will (to stay in office) there is always a way.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    My parents were up in Austin last week and complained about the camps, so they must have figured out how to get those camps out really quick. I'll be there myself in the next couple weeks for some datacenter work, so I can take a look firsthand.

by xt00 4y ago

id 4y ago

You know what's even more unfair than you having to deal with this "eye sore"? That these people are homeless. Have some empathy. They are people, too.

mechanical_bear 4y ago
Why is no one ever told to have empathy for the people whose livelihoods and homes are impacted by this problem?
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  Relative impact of issues?
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Because one group has a roof over their heads and one doesn't?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- id 4y ago
  They don't compare. One group has their homes "impacted" (they are inconvenienced by the sight of poverty), the other group doesn't have a freaking home.
  - cruano 4y ago
    > they are inconvenienced by the sight of poverty Or, you know, wake up to find shit on their driveways, smashed windows on their cars, needles thrown on the street, etc.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    I'm assuming that you have the privilege of never living near a large homeless encampment. It really does become an all-encompassing matter for people in the area. You're reminded of it every time you breathe in air that smells like diesel and burnt aluminum foil. When you see tents at the very intersection in this article, while the bridge housing 2 blocks away has 50+ empty units due to lack of interest. Every time you go to the library and there's someone in a trenchcoat furiously masturbating. When you're followed on a bike ride by someone who runs a chop shop, looking to see if you're an easy mark. When you're walking down the street and someone screams racial slurs and threatens to kill you. Rationally you can think "that's just the mental illness or addiction causing someone to behave that way". But over time, even if you rationalize the behavior it wears down on your empathy.
- tdfx 4y ago
  Because a certain subset of people loves to advocate for disadvantaged people so long as the personal cost to themselves is zero.
- swearwolf 4y ago
  I think it’s for a number of reasons: 1. The limitations of the oppressed vs. oppressor view of the world, which is very popular at the moment. It takes a comfort with cognitive dissonance to accept that some haves aren’t necessarily oppressors, but it’s easy to assume that they are. See also: the scorn heaped upon small time landlords. 2. Accepting that some people will take advantage of a given situation, even homelessness, for their own gain is a very disconcerting thought if you tend towards empathy for homeless people. I struggle with accepting this myself, even though I can see it happening in front of me. 3. The bifurcation of all political ideology into Republican vs. Democrat, and the suspicion of crypto-Republicanism that is now levied at ideas outside the acceptable Overton window. 4. Bitter jealousy towards people who have managed to secure property in a desirable area that others feel locked out of due to rising costs. I used to feel this quite intensely myself.
jvanderbot 4y ago
You know what would be great? A park with more bathrooms and safe grills in the same area for people to live in. maybe even areas where it's easy to set up a sleeping arrangement and get a little privacy. Hell, why not add some doors and walls to these little areas, and some indoor plumbing to make it sanitary. you could even go so far as to make part of the park for living, and part of it a shared recreational space for them and members of the community to comingle.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Sir, I believe you are describing an apartment complex ;)
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    Ah ha.
tdfx 4y ago
I'm not sure why criticizing politicians who are weaponizing homeless populations against local residents to sway public opinion is lacking empathy. If anything, it's dignifying them as people who should not be used as pawns for a political agenda.
thegrimmest 4y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask: 1) How many homeless people are interested in a productive life, with the work/sobriety expectations (and the housing/benefits) that implies? 2) How many of those are actively working towards this goal? It sure seems to me that there are lots of people who want to live irresponsibly, and prey on our sympathy to facilitate that lifestyle.
- bildung 4y ago
  > 1) How many homeless people are interested in a productive life, with the work/sobriety expectations (and the housing/benefits) that implies? Almost all, as becomes evident if you compare the drastically different homelessness rates in other countries.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    I'm not sure such comparisons control very well for climate and cultural factors.
    - bildung 4y ago
      Then just look at the distribution in the USA: Among the states with most homelessness per capita are: District of Columbia, New York, Oregon, Washington State, Alaska. Yes, also Californa, but California has most of everything, including housed people.
      - swearwolf 4y ago
        Aside from D.C. and New York, these are all states within the ninth circuit court’s jurisdiction, and therefore are bound to the Martin v. Boise ruling, which allows public camping if there is not adequate shelter space available. If one part of the country allows that while the rest doesn’t, you’d expect that the homeless population will migrate over time to the more permissive area, which seems to be borne out in the growth of the homeless population on the West Coast since the ruling went into effect. Of course, we also mint plenty of new homeless ourselves with our astronomical housing costs, but I see a lot of people with out-of-state plates on the RVs they live in here in Oregon.
asdff 4y ago
empathy means realizing that these conditions they live in under the status quo is harmful and does not come from a place of care. I'm sure the people living in the camp think its an eyesore too and would prefer better circumstances than a nylon tent that anyone with bad intentions and a buck knife can break into.
oh_sigh 4y ago
So invite a homeless person to live in your house with you. I bet you have a spare room or even a couch they could crash on. If everyone who accused people who complain about homeless encampments of lacking empathy did this simple thing, there would be no more homeless encampments. Have some empathy please.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lukeschlather 4y ago

There's really no conspiracy, this is the cheapest thing to do. You kick people out of the parks, they just move around and you still have basically the same problem next week. In order to permanently get people to leave you need to build semi-permanent camps. But these camps do need to be in somewhat desirable areas because the people in the camps need to live near where they can find work (many don't have cars.) You put them out in the boonies they're just going to come camp in the city because there's no jobs in the boonies and they are mostly normal people who want to find work and not have to camp in tents. Obtaining land and permitting such camps is hard. The more expensive option is building permanent housing. The most expensive option is prison.

guerrilla 4y ago
> you need to build semi-permanent camps. Or... housing.
pandaman 4y ago
Check out what happened in Austin, TX. The city government proclaimed the same thing you are saying: there is no way to get rid of homeless so they allowed "city camping" in 2019. By 2020 the city of Austin had encampments under every overpass, in parks and on some major streets. But a PAC against this has been established and passed a ballot measure in 2021. The city government first ignored it (they've made up a 4-stage plan to implement it where each stage consisted of asking homeless not to camp) but the PAC stuck around and kept engaging the city in the courts and pushing other measures on the ballot. This caused a real fear of losing for the current mayor and city council so suddenly they've found a way to get rid of all the camps. Where there is a will (to stay in office) there is always a way.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  My parents were up in Austin last week and complained about the camps, so they must have figured out how to get those camps out really quick. I'll be there myself in the next couple weeks for some datacenter work, so I can take a look firsthand.