3 ms·
That seems like the best compromise to me. Punishing people who truly have no other option rubs me the wrong way. But I'm fine with going after people who do
by rainsford 3y ago
That seems like the best compromise to me. Punishing people who truly have no other option rubs me the wrong way. But I'm fine with going after people who do have other options but choose to be a public nuisance, and at the same time such a policy incentivizes the local government actually making sure other options are available.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoThe thing is that almost all homeless people have options.
- mistermann 3y agoPeople with homes also have the option of not whining about homeless people, will they rise to the occasion and seize that opportunity? As is usually the case there's lots of blame to go around, and most everyone expects peak performance from others, but not of themselves and their ingroup.
- candiodari 3y agoAnd what if the "unavailable options" are unavailable, because of the unavailability of ahem medication options. In other words, if a shelter is availabe, but they get kicked out for drug use? Same with agression, animals, unacceptable collections (either hoarding, or something like a collection of knives), ...? Are we going to "outlaw" homeless people with a dog?
- nrclark 3y agoWhat does it mean to go after them? You can't exactly fine somebody who doesn't have any money or an address. And our jails are crowded enough without throwing hundreds or thousands more people in there. I read somewhere that it costs around $50k/year to keep somebody imprisoned in the US. Jailing the homeless would get very expensive, very fast.