5 ms·

This move is so counter-intuitive to me. You prefer tents? You want people to have less security? You’d rather people stored their stuff in a cart that they h

This move is so counter-intuitive to me. You prefer tents? You want people to have less security? You’d rather people stored their stuff in a cart that they have to push around everywhere? You can’t abolish poverty but you can sure make it worse.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
pengaru 1y ago
Seems pretty obvious the intention is to push them up into housing or out of the city, not into tents on the sidewalks. Tents aren't tolerated anymore: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments-00165741 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homel... And it shows. I encounter tent residents far less often now vs. last year, and there's no way those people have all moved into added RV capacity. It was already at its limit. (I've skateboard commuted through SOMA in SF most days for coming up on 2 years)
- dexwiz 1y ago
  Temporary tents seem to be more tolerated. There are a few I see every night in my area, but they aren't there during the day. Its the semipermanent encampments that are really being targeted. I see less full-time living on the sidewalk, but there are definitely people still sleeping there.
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    I think a big part of the problem is that if you allow large, semipermanent encampments or groups of RVs, you eventually end up with huge mounds of trash. Some of it is supposedly from other people dumping trash, but some of it is absolutely from residents hoarding, and it makes the footprint balloon out of control into sidewalks, streets, parks, and any other flat bit of space, until the area becomes pretty unusable for anyone not living there. Which makes a hands off approach politically untenable.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      Yeah, but why not come out and make the actual problem - trash and fires - the issue (and it is a big issue), and not RVs more broadly. Institute a we-will-kick-you-out-if-there's-a-mountain-of-trash law and do sweeps (as they have been doing).
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Because it’s faster and cheaper to prevent the problem rather than clean it up afterwards.
        fragmede 1y ago
        Sure, but somehow I don't think banning poor people from reproducing is likely to go over well, so what makes this stage the right place to stop the problem at instead of earlier/later?
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        The right place to stop the problem for a city/county/state government in a country with freedom of movement is different than the right place to stop for a federal government with immigration controls. I.e. SF is never going to be able to fix the problem of people being too poor (or addicted or mentally ill or whatever), due to arbitrage opportunities.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - dexwiz 1y ago
      Absolutely. The overnight tents I see are much tidier. Usually they take up a very small footprint, have a well secured tarp, and look like they get rolled up neatly every day. They aren't accompanied by a hoard of refuse.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Locally, you can abolish poverty even if you can't globally.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  In other words just pushing it out of your field of view so you don't have to be bothered by it.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    This is true about a lot of human activity.
burnt-resistor 1y ago
The country is continuing to rapidly move to an authoritarian ideology and to illiberal hate and criminalization of poverty. Limousine neoneoliberal Democrats and far-right MAGA both display illiberal animosity towards a narrow subset of disadvantaged groups. It's about as rational and empathetic as deporting the people who pick your vegetables, make your dinner, and build your homes. But until the confluence of related problems* are address systemically, criminalization won't solve. * Cheaper housing with greater inventory, comprehensive medical and mental healthcare, substance treatment programs that work, higher minimum wage, lower housing cost:income ratio, and tailored and helpful support and investment in people who don't have enough to magically pull themselves up by their invisible bootstraps.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

pengaru 1y ago

Seems pretty obvious the intention is to push them up into housing or out of the city, not into tents on the sidewalks. Tents aren't tolerated anymore: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments-00165741 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homel... And it shows. I encounter tent residents far less often now vs. last year, and there's no way those people have all moved into added RV capacity. It was already at its limit. (I've skateboard commuted through SOMA in SF most days for coming up on 2 years)

dexwiz 1y ago
Temporary tents seem to be more tolerated. There are a few I see every night in my area, but they aren't there during the day. Its the semipermanent encampments that are really being targeted. I see less full-time living on the sidewalk, but there are definitely people still sleeping there.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  I think a big part of the problem is that if you allow large, semipermanent encampments or groups of RVs, you eventually end up with huge mounds of trash. Some of it is supposedly from other people dumping trash, but some of it is absolutely from residents hoarding, and it makes the footprint balloon out of control into sidewalks, streets, parks, and any other flat bit of space, until the area becomes pretty unusable for anyone not living there. Which makes a hands off approach politically untenable.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    Yeah, but why not come out and make the actual problem - trash and fires - the issue (and it is a big issue), and not RVs more broadly. Institute a we-will-kick-you-out-if-there's-a-mountain-of-trash law and do sweeps (as they have been doing).
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Because it’s faster and cheaper to prevent the problem rather than clean it up afterwards.
      - fragmede 1y ago
        Sure, but somehow I don't think banning poor people from reproducing is likely to go over well, so what makes this stage the right place to stop the problem at instead of earlier/later?
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        The right place to stop the problem for a city/county/state government in a country with freedom of movement is different than the right place to stop for a federal government with immigration controls. I.e. SF is never going to be able to fix the problem of people being too poor (or addicted or mentally ill or whatever), due to arbitrage opportunities.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - dexwiz 1y ago
    Absolutely. The overnight tents I see are much tidier. Usually they take up a very small footprint, have a well secured tarp, and look like they get rolled up neatly every day. They aren't accompanied by a hoard of refuse.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

Locally, you can abolish poverty even if you can't globally.

wkat4242 1y ago
In other words just pushing it out of your field of view so you don't have to be bothered by it.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  This is true about a lot of human activity.

burnt-resistor 1y ago

The country is continuing to rapidly move to an authoritarian ideology and to illiberal hate and criminalization of poverty. Limousine neoneoliberal Democrats and far-right MAGA both display illiberal animosity towards a narrow subset of disadvantaged groups. It's about as rational and empathetic as deporting the people who pick your vegetables, make your dinner, and build your homes. But until the confluence of related problems* are address systemically, criminalization won't solve. * Cheaper housing with greater inventory, comprehensive medical and mental healthcare, substance treatment programs that work, higher minimum wage, lower housing cost:income ratio, and tailored and helpful support and investment in people who don't have enough to magically pull themselves up by their invisible bootstraps.