3 ms·

You're missing the point. The reason they don't give things up is because the shelter is temporary, but they results of using it aren't. If you tell a homeless

by tedivm 3y ago

You're missing the point. The reason they don't give things up is because the shelter is temporary, but they results of using it aren't. If you tell a homeless person you're going to shelter them for six months, the vast majority will take the shelter. If you tell them they have to move and you'll give them a bed for a night then many of them will see that as a shitty deal (which it is). As for the legal stuff, you'll have to ask the supreme court as I wasn't the one arguing the case or making the law. That being said there are cities that have built out storage systems for homeless people. You don't even have to go that far for it, as Berkeley has been experimenting with this for awhile now. https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/27/city-makes-available-new-storage-lockers-for-those-without-homes https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/27/city-makes-available... That said, giving the homeless a place to stay is cheaper than leaving them on the street. The vast majority of people in these programs end up getting jobs and paying their own way in the future.

scarmig 3y ago
You're missing the point: requiring the government to provide permanent housing that has storage units and allows pets (and alcohol, and drugs, and...) before it can take action on homelessness is not an effective approach. Temporary housing is useful, even though it might mean having to give up a dog. The fact that most of those remaining on the streets don't want it has no bearing on whether the government should be able to enforce public safety and sanitation laws.
- tedivm 3y ago
  Say what you really mean. > before it can take action on homelessness Building the shelters is taking action. Without the shelters what exactly are you proposing to do? If there literally are no beds available, where are the homeless supposed to go in your system? That's what the supreme court pointed out. They said that if there is no place for the homeless to go, if the city hasn't done it's job, then it has no right to tell people they can't sleep on public spaces. What action would you take?
  - scarmig 3y ago
    The point is that there are shelter beds available: many are empty. The fact that if every single homeless person decided to take a bed there wouldn't be enough is irrelevant, because they don't want to. If N is the number of beds needed to house absolutely every homeless person, going from N-1 to N wouldn't result in a single additional homeless person in a bed, because right now there are empty beds available that aren't being taken. There are reasons a homeless person might not want to take a bed right now, some of them even sympathetic reasons (safety being foremost), but getting up to N beds would do nothing to make them want to take one of those beds. And as soon as we did get to N beds, homelessness advocates would immediately start stipulating additional demands before anything could be done: it can't be just a bed, it needs a storage unit; it needs to allow pets; it can't be just a bed but be an entirely separate unit having a locking door for safety; etc. The "we must get to N beds before we do anything!" is a talking point that distracts from the core issue. For the record, I'd be against enforcing the laws if it were the case that every homeless shelter was at full capacity.
    - 6D794163636F756 3y ago
      It is relevant because taking a bed means giving up means of survival without anything to replace it. You also seem to be forgetting that these are people with agency and not just numbers on a spreadsheet so yes, people will argue that they deserve the respect needed to improve their own conditions.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - tedivm 3y ago
      I have personally spent hours trying to find people beds at the homeless shelters in SF- they are at full capacity. If someone refuses a bed someone else steps up to take it. This idea that there are a bunch of empty shelter beds is pure fiction.

by tedivm 3y ago

scarmig 3y ago

You're missing the point: requiring the government to provide permanent housing that has storage units and allows pets (and alcohol, and drugs, and...) before it can take action on homelessness is not an effective approach. Temporary housing is useful, even though it might mean having to give up a dog. The fact that most of those remaining on the streets don't want it has no bearing on whether the government should be able to enforce public safety and sanitation laws.

tedivm 3y ago
Say what you really mean. > before it can take action on homelessness Building the shelters is taking action. Without the shelters what exactly are you proposing to do? If there literally are no beds available, where are the homeless supposed to go in your system? That's what the supreme court pointed out. They said that if there is no place for the homeless to go, if the city hasn't done it's job, then it has no right to tell people they can't sleep on public spaces. What action would you take?
- scarmig 3y ago
  The point is that there are shelter beds available: many are empty. The fact that if every single homeless person decided to take a bed there wouldn't be enough is irrelevant, because they don't want to. If N is the number of beds needed to house absolutely every homeless person, going from N-1 to N wouldn't result in a single additional homeless person in a bed, because right now there are empty beds available that aren't being taken. There are reasons a homeless person might not want to take a bed right now, some of them even sympathetic reasons (safety being foremost), but getting up to N beds would do nothing to make them want to take one of those beds. And as soon as we did get to N beds, homelessness advocates would immediately start stipulating additional demands before anything could be done: it can't be just a bed, it needs a storage unit; it needs to allow pets; it can't be just a bed but be an entirely separate unit having a locking door for safety; etc. The "we must get to N beds before we do anything!" is a talking point that distracts from the core issue. For the record, I'd be against enforcing the laws if it were the case that every homeless shelter was at full capacity.
  - 6D794163636F756 3y ago
    It is relevant because taking a bed means giving up means of survival without anything to replace it. You also seem to be forgetting that these are people with agency and not just numbers on a spreadsheet so yes, people will argue that they deserve the respect needed to improve their own conditions.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - tedivm 3y ago
    I have personally spent hours trying to find people beds at the homeless shelters in SF- they are at full capacity. If someone refuses a bed someone else steps up to take it. This idea that there are a bunch of empty shelter beds is pure fiction.