Banning them from 'sleeping outside' is just moving them along. They do not have 'homes' to go to, except maybe a tent, if they are lucky. They need to sleep eventually, and they need to sleep somewhere. If they have no place to go, it will be on the street, preferably on a grate that breathes warm air from underground.
These KArens who sit on councils imagine that all people have homes to go to. Getting 'rid' of street sleepers, means what exactly? Bussing them to the countryside? To another city perhaps? They come to the cities because they can then use shops with the little money they have, and peripherally still take advantage of some amenitites. Or maybe they are in that city because that is where they lost their home,
What are u gunna do? Ban Sleeping? Get rid of corner shops and bottle stores?
And I am still wondering what happened to all those peeps who were magically moved, for the Chinese dignitaries to see clean streets.
I realize that many of them are drug addicts, but that is a symptom, not the problem.
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,
I realize that many of them are drug addicts, but that is a symtom, not the problem.
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.
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".
Banning them from 'sleeping outside' is just moving them along. They do not have 'homes' to go to, except maybe a tent, if they are lucky. They need to sleep eventually, and they need to sleep somewhere. If they have no place to go, it will be on the street, preferably on a grate that breathes warm air from underground.
These KArens who sit on councils imagine that all people have homes to go to. Getting 'rid' of street sleepers, means what exactly? Bussing them to the countryside? To another city perhaps? They come to the cities because they can then use shops with the little money they have, and peripherally still take advantage of some amenitites. Or maybe they are in that city because that is where they lost their home,
What are u gunna do? Ban Sleeping? Get rid of corner shops and bottle stores?
And I am still wondering what happened to all those peeps who were magically moved, for the Chinese dignitaries to see clean streets.
I realize that many of them are drug addicts, but that is a symptom, not the problem.
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".