If there was available, appropriate, safe, and dignified housing available to people in encampments, then it would be justifiable to clear ad hoc encampments. Otherwise, you’re just making it “someone else’s problem,” because people have to go somewhere.
Right of access to public spaces doesn’t mean shitting on the street, smoking crack, starting fires, or stealing dozens of bikes and packages from neighbors.
They shit on the street because no one is letting them use any bathrooms. They are “starting fires” because it gets cold in L.A. at night.
Most homeless people in L.A. are not drug addicts or thieves. They’re just down on their luck in one of the most expensive cities in the country. Many of them even have jobs. But when rent is $2000 a month for a shithole that’s a 3-hour drive from their job, what are they supposed to do?
So you tell us: where are they supposed to go? How are they even supposed to get there?
Also, re the drug part- if you had to live in the conditions they lived in, you’d probably be tempted to take the cheap escape that intoxication offered too.
They also start fires to cook with, because most food banks and SNAP don’t give warm food. You have to heat it yourself. If we loosened this restriction for SNAP there would probably be less fires.
When it comes to theft and drug use, a lot of that isn’t the homeless. Yes some homeless, but most visible homeless literally cannot steal because they can’t even get into stores and if they do they are watched so closely.
Drug use sure. But most homeless can’t afford to use drugs at the same rate as housed people. And drug use itself isn’t an issue, it’s that it’s in public, which they wouldn’t do if they had a house. They also would poop in their own house if they had it. Giving homeless people homes solves a ton of issues with them.
Tell me, where do you poop? Are you willing to let any unhoused people poop there? Where do you cook? Are you willing to let any unhoused people cook there?
Housed people poop, do drugs, cook, and steal.
Unhoused people poop, do drugs, cook, and steal. They just do it from a public space.
Life is hard, especially when you’re on the streets. I don’t fault anyone for doing what they need to survive or recreating in a way to escape their struggles.
Most homeless people are down on their luck and really need support. Affordable housing, job training and placement programs, food, and medical care can really help these people. I don’t have any problem with this majority of the homeless population.
A small percentage of homeless are insane, whether due to mental health problems/drugs/some combination. These are the people causing problems. They cannot be left to destroy themselves and society around them. We need mandatory care for these people for them to live with dignity. It is not compassionate to throw them on the streets and ignore them. We need asylums for this subset, like we had until Reagan closed them all.
I agree up until the last part. Collective forced housing (en masse), involuntary institutionalization, or enslavement, all give similar effects and they are negative. I highly recommend a visit to the Glore Psychiatric Museum in St Jo, Missouri, if you want to see what those asylums were actually like. It’s out of a horror film. What you’re requesting is a living nightmare for the very people who can’t advocate well for themselves.
I think a better solution would be assisted living apartments, giving the person in question the most autonomy possible. Social workers should be required to have body cams. You might like learning more about bioethics when it comes to determining autonomy and consent with medical/neurological conditions - a complicated topic.
We can design a system that offers people dignity and care without rampant abuse. Some combination of public transparency, civil rights group monitoring and criminal penalties for failures in the administration.
The horrible treatment of people you’re describing is not inherent to asylums. It is a risk that we need to be conscious of and design systems and safeguards to prevent.
Unfortunately, all group housing has this effect on people. Even young babies in orphanages do worse in group settings compared to one on one care.
There is something inherently damaging when we put people on an assembly line and remove their individuality and personhood. We can see this over and over again in many different settings.
I have lived in several states that already just give disabled people apartments and have caregivers check in as needed. This system already exists and works really well. It lets the disabled person pick out a living situation that works with them and their needs. It lets them have a home.
Disability is very complex and often people have many disabilities. A person with diabetes and food allergies could die living in a group home. Many group homes are not very accessible for certain disabilities. And many disabilities have accomodations that directly contradict each other. For instance, you may need a wide hallway for a wheelchair, but a different resident needs to sit down in the hallway if they feel faint and may block the hallway for a chair. Or a person with a seeing eye dog may conflict with a person who has a severe dog allergy. Both people deserve housing that fits them individually.
No, it’s an overwhelming problem. Encampments are huge, unsafe, and monopolize use of public spaces.
If there was available, appropriate, safe, and dignified housing available to people in encampments, then it would be justifiable to clear ad hoc encampments. Otherwise, you’re just making it “someone else’s problem,” because people have to go somewhere.
They’re people not a threat.
Loose fit for the meme, but the sentiment is the same.
Average person on safe supply.
Unhoused people are members of the public and thus ought to have access to public spaces.
Right of access to public spaces doesn’t mean shitting on the street, smoking crack, starting fires, or stealing dozens of bikes and packages from neighbors.
They shit on the street because no one is letting them use any bathrooms. They are “starting fires” because it gets cold in L.A. at night.
Most homeless people in L.A. are not drug addicts or thieves. They’re just down on their luck in one of the most expensive cities in the country. Many of them even have jobs. But when rent is $2000 a month for a shithole that’s a 3-hour drive from their job, what are they supposed to do?
This says almost 50% of homeless people were working in L.A. and that was back in 2020- https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/homeless-la-county-homelessness-working-jobs/
So you tell us: where are they supposed to go? How are they even supposed to get there?
Also, re the drug part- if you had to live in the conditions they lived in, you’d probably be tempted to take the cheap escape that intoxication offered too.
They also start fires to cook with, because most food banks and SNAP don’t give warm food. You have to heat it yourself. If we loosened this restriction for SNAP there would probably be less fires.
When it comes to theft and drug use, a lot of that isn’t the homeless. Yes some homeless, but most visible homeless literally cannot steal because they can’t even get into stores and if they do they are watched so closely.
Drug use sure. But most homeless can’t afford to use drugs at the same rate as housed people. And drug use itself isn’t an issue, it’s that it’s in public, which they wouldn’t do if they had a house. They also would poop in their own house if they had it. Giving homeless people homes solves a ton of issues with them.
Tell me, where do you poop? Are you willing to let any unhoused people poop there? Where do you cook? Are you willing to let any unhoused people cook there?
Housed people poop, do drugs, cook, and steal. Unhoused people poop, do drugs, cook, and steal. They just do it from a public space.
Life is hard, especially when you’re on the streets. I don’t fault anyone for doing what they need to survive or recreating in a way to escape their struggles.
The alternative is to stick them all in a very large train that runs around the earth at the equator.
Most homeless people are down on their luck and really need support. Affordable housing, job training and placement programs, food, and medical care can really help these people. I don’t have any problem with this majority of the homeless population.
A small percentage of homeless are insane, whether due to mental health problems/drugs/some combination. These are the people causing problems. They cannot be left to destroy themselves and society around them. We need mandatory care for these people for them to live with dignity. It is not compassionate to throw them on the streets and ignore them. We need asylums for this subset, like we had until Reagan closed them all.
That’s what the caboose is for
I agree up until the last part. Collective forced housing (en masse), involuntary institutionalization, or enslavement, all give similar effects and they are negative. I highly recommend a visit to the Glore Psychiatric Museum in St Jo, Missouri, if you want to see what those asylums were actually like. It’s out of a horror film. What you’re requesting is a living nightmare for the very people who can’t advocate well for themselves.
I think a better solution would be assisted living apartments, giving the person in question the most autonomy possible. Social workers should be required to have body cams. You might like learning more about bioethics when it comes to determining autonomy and consent with medical/neurological conditions - a complicated topic.
We can design a system that offers people dignity and care without rampant abuse. Some combination of public transparency, civil rights group monitoring and criminal penalties for failures in the administration.
The horrible treatment of people you’re describing is not inherent to asylums. It is a risk that we need to be conscious of and design systems and safeguards to prevent.
Do you remember the Stanford prison experiment?
Unfortunately, all group housing has this effect on people. Even young babies in orphanages do worse in group settings compared to one on one care.
There is something inherently damaging when we put people on an assembly line and remove their individuality and personhood. We can see this over and over again in many different settings.
I have lived in several states that already just give disabled people apartments and have caregivers check in as needed. This system already exists and works really well. It lets the disabled person pick out a living situation that works with them and their needs. It lets them have a home.
Disability is very complex and often people have many disabilities. A person with diabetes and food allergies could die living in a group home. Many group homes are not very accessible for certain disabilities. And many disabilities have accomodations that directly contradict each other. For instance, you may need a wide hallway for a wheelchair, but a different resident needs to sit down in the hallway if they feel faint and may block the hallway for a chair. Or a person with a seeing eye dog may conflict with a person who has a severe dog allergy. Both people deserve housing that fits them individually.