We still have those benches because there’s still homeless and honestly them taking over those benches ruins it for everyone else. Not because they’re homeless because they’re almost always addicts and drunk people or people on drugs who might also have mental issues are a bit threatening and unpleasant to others.
hey! so it turns out you can treat people with mental illness and addiction. it also turns out that untreated mental illness often contributes to addiction. it also turns out that untreated addiction can exacerbate mental illness. oh! AND it turns out that homelessness can exacerbate mental illness and addiction!
but you know. those people are also unpleasant, so we should probably just make sure they can’t lay down anywhere. i mean, eff those assholes.
hey! so it turns out you can treat people with mental illness and addiction
What a novel idea, we’ve never tried that here in Finland. If we had heard about that we might’ve made a lot of programs to help them, house them. Surely that should’ve solved the issue completely. But alas, we never knew about such things.
but you know. those people are also unpleasant, so we should probably just make sure they can’t lay down anywhere. i mean, eff those assholes.
It would be unfair to them to make the public spaces, meant for all public, unpleasant for most people to cater to those who are hostile and threatening to others. Which is unfortunately the case with drunk and high addicts. You don’t want to exclude homeless but you also can’t allow them to exclude others with unacceptable behaviour. And public transit stations for example aren’t meant for living or sleeping in, the benches are for temporary use, often for those with trouble standing. Someone using the bench to sleep on is taking it away from others. It’s a tough situation. And housing is provided for everyone. Not everyone takes the offer, often for addiction and mental health issues. You can’t exactly force them either.
I feel like you live in a much more magical world than I do, with much simpler solutions to what others consider big and difficult issues.
i assumed i was responding to the typical hateful conservative american here (and yes, i have made the typically american error in that) who pretty much has the attitude of “eff those losers, why should i care, etc.” hostile architecture in a country that does not universally offer alternatives (some cities/states are better than others as far as offering services) just seems like an extra kick in the shins for people who may not have alternatives. our country is not as progressive as yours in this regard (and many others).
so i stand corrected in my understanding of the context behind your statement.
as for my magical world? i doubt it. many of my clients are homeless or mentally ill. and i do, in fact, have such a person in my family. i understand that it’s not at all easy to help some people.
We still have those benches because there’s still homeless and honestly them taking over those benches ruins it for everyone else. Not because they’re homeless because they’re almost always addicts and drunk people or people on drugs who might also have mental issues are a bit threatening and unpleasant to others.
hey! so it turns out you can treat people with mental illness and addiction. it also turns out that untreated mental illness often contributes to addiction. it also turns out that untreated addiction can exacerbate mental illness. oh! AND it turns out that homelessness can exacerbate mental illness and addiction!
but you know. those people are also unpleasant, so we should probably just make sure they can’t lay down anywhere. i mean, eff those assholes.
What a novel idea, we’ve never tried that here in Finland. If we had heard about that we might’ve made a lot of programs to help them, house them. Surely that should’ve solved the issue completely. But alas, we never knew about such things.
It would be unfair to them to make the public spaces, meant for all public, unpleasant for most people to cater to those who are hostile and threatening to others. Which is unfortunately the case with drunk and high addicts. You don’t want to exclude homeless but you also can’t allow them to exclude others with unacceptable behaviour. And public transit stations for example aren’t meant for living or sleeping in, the benches are for temporary use, often for those with trouble standing. Someone using the bench to sleep on is taking it away from others. It’s a tough situation. And housing is provided for everyone. Not everyone takes the offer, often for addiction and mental health issues. You can’t exactly force them either.
I feel like you live in a much more magical world than I do, with much simpler solutions to what others consider big and difficult issues.
i assumed i was responding to the typical hateful conservative american here (and yes, i have made the typically american error in that) who pretty much has the attitude of “eff those losers, why should i care, etc.” hostile architecture in a country that does not universally offer alternatives (some cities/states are better than others as far as offering services) just seems like an extra kick in the shins for people who may not have alternatives. our country is not as progressive as yours in this regard (and many others).
so i stand corrected in my understanding of the context behind your statement.
as for my magical world? i doubt it. many of my clients are homeless or mentally ill. and i do, in fact, have such a person in my family. i understand that it’s not at all easy to help some people.