US Supreme Court weighs ban on homeless people sleeping outside
(insiderpaper.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
Yes. They should be bussed out of the city to an area set up for them.
A tent city where there is space for a tent city.
They have no fundamental right to destroy the standard of living of everyone else,
Clearly, it is one of the primary problems. The tent cities should ban alcohol and all drugs.
Either they get clean and sober, or they go to jail.
They should have busses to take them into the city to look for jobs, and when they can afford an apartment, they can move there and live like the rest of us.
Hard times are one thing, but destroying the way of life of everyone else is not acceptable.
OK, thanks for answering, because I enjoy a debate:
So, such a refugee/drying out rehabilitation camps have been done in the past. There are documented examples. So, to avoid certain pitfalls (which can easily turn to having Auswitzian ramifications):
The camps should be constructed in a regimental fashion for ease of services and traffic, etc. Sort of like a Roman camp. But, building those, sets off conspiracy theorist googlemappers and content-tourists, as documented in Australia, during the last few 'C' conpiracy years. Given that there have been no rumours of empty, but new tent-cities, 'just a comfy drive' away from said cities, I asked: where are the planners sending the street-people?
The tent/modular tiny-home camps should be comfortable and humane, with power/running water/ablution blocks/WIFI etc., so that people go there willingly, otherwise we will have social media of: homeless people being kidnapped from the streets by suited men and laden into buses. A wee bit brown-shirty. Refer to point one, to check on political willingness to invest in such a well-serviced and planned venture.
All those empty office-blocks with clap-board walls and bad ventilation, could be turned into living quarters, but not in the state they are in. No doubt there is a fair bit of squatting already in play. The issue is: The Office-block commercial property guys, have been kicking the sleepers out 'cos eww, and fire-hazards and dirty needles etc. But, the office-workers have all discovered their home-WIFI and are workng from home, so they are not going back to the city. Offices remain empty since lockdowns - so I guess this is what is being talked about now, because the retail-office commercial property guys are not making any money.
So to elaborate: if the building's bones i.e. the concrete slabs, are in good condition, one could start a modular village in the city. Instead of Camps 'out there' which are expensive, difficult to find land for, and not easy to hide. And guess what? there are lifts, electricity on each floor, toilets etc.
So, such a solution would mean individual/pair/family living pods that can be arranged on a concrete floor, with WIFI; charging points and serviced toilet block on each floor already there. Bonus.
Each floor (some demolition required) would need a Commercial grade kitchen and laundromat an installation for the city to consider funding - in collabrataion with the hurting retail/officespace guys. But I guess the public funding aspect can be compared with setting up a fully serviced camp 'out there'.
Such a venture would still be subject to fire-codes and ablution rules etc. Hence all that clap-board needs to go, and plumbing inspections etc.
But this might be something less politically challenging than trying to 'outsource' the 'problem'. And that's why I am bringing point 3 up.
There are downsides, of course.
I know of two planned villages for the homeless in two very different states. Both were stripped bare and eventually abandoned and torn down. Some people don't like "rules" imposed on their "freedoms".
Seems like you drank the Kool-Aid regarding the lies about 1930's Germany.
But back to your main point ...
I think you are trying to play king and being way too detailed in your ideas.
My primary point is this: NOBODY has the RIGHT to abuse everyone else in society by degrading the area (city) into a complete shithole that everyone must deal with.
I don't care if they are drug addicts or mentally insane or just plain lazy. Makes no difference to me, they don't have a RIGHT to do it.
There would need to be some sort of organization to the effort, but not to the extent you are wanting.
When Sheriff Arpaio had enough of the criminals in Arizona, he simply set up an outdoor desert camp to house them in. That is all that is needed, along with heat, food, toilets, ability to clean clothes, and maybe companies in the city sending their people to interview and hire those who want to work.
Busses into the city to go to their documented jobs.
When they are on their feet, they can find an apartment in the city and go back to normal life.
That is for the homeless who are just down on their luck and need a helping hand for a time.
But there are also lazy bastards, drunks, drug addicts, mentally unstable, and downright troublemakers who won't want to go along with that program.
So, I suggest a total ban on all drugs, including alcohol, in the tent city. Those who sneak it in anyway can go to the "other encampment" which is an outdoor prison (like Arpaio had), for the purpose of giving them time to get sober. Once sober, they can return to the homeless camp.
Those who have mental problems could be given psych help, including drugs, if necessary, and get back into normal society.
Those who are troublemakers will end up in prison.
Those who are really, really lazy will just hang out, get "free" food, live in a tent, no booze or drugs, and if that's what they want, then stay there. Sooner or later, they will probably decide to pick themselves up and get on with life. But if not, they are at least "out there" and not causing problems for the rest of us.
People found sleeping in public (in the city) can either (a) be cited and move on, or (b) get arrested, spend the night in jail, and then moved out to the tent city. Those who were cited and found again, will go the route of (b).
We need to stop with the weak, pathetic enabling of these people who are causing the rest of us problems.
There are no great solutions because THEY refuse to DO the things that would solve the problems.
So if they won't, then we will.
BTW ...
If a person wants to sleep all day, get high, fuck around and do nothing with their time -- AND they have the financial resources (money, housing they pay for or their family/friend pays for) -- then they have the right to do it.
But they do NOT have the right to just sleep in the public streets and parks, causing problems for everyone else. THOSE are the people I am talking about above.
100 percent ,, all your comments 100 percent !!! 13 billion spent in LA and its worse . That money went in the pockets of politicians etc . 1 billion would have housed all of them in tent places and everything you said , buses to work etc , get clean or go to jail and get clean there . That’s 3 hots and a cot ,, I’d rather be in a tent, But their choice . Get off the street period ! We should not have to deal with thier life style . Help them as you said, like Sheriff A did in AZ 100 percent
OK, so that is a very fuzzy statement. First of all society already deals with all sorts of public stuff, like sewerage, street-cleaners, dump-trucks, ambulances, public playgrounds etc. IF the garbage is not removed properly, then the street soon looks like a hell-hole. My point is that 'every else' is already actively dealing with a constantly degrading infrastructure. That is the nature of public management. The argument is: How is one to deal with it, going forward. You advocate for camps outside the city. I advocate for converting Office buildings, with some detail.
Do you mean that 'everyone else' is abused by 'their' presence? So, it is a fastidious cleansing sort of statement - to make the streets nice-;looking again. There is a clear distinction between 'those people' and 'everyone else'. Define it please. Bipolar generalizations tend to cause, for example, vulnerable young people down on their luck, being swept up in the clean-up, and that situation is ripe for abuse.
You blame the drug-takers etc. fine. I agree, those people are a special kind of victim of an international conspiracy to bring USA to its knees, a la a just retribution. There was a country that experienced such a revolution. Drugs, collapse and hunger and they are now quite happy, a hundred years later, except for perhaps some cold revenge.
So yes, those drug-addicts ( a percentage of 'those' people) can benefit from some sort of curfew/lockdown. Perhaps a de-tox program. But, I believe that sending them out in the desert is one thing - good on Arizona. Sending them out into upstate NY, or the hampshires, or Pennsylvanian ex-coalminer towns is maybe it bit of a harsher sentence. It's called snow in winter. So, that is why I am overthinking live-saving pods, etc.
And thanks for the opportunity to speak actively my fine fren.