deleted by creator
Easy fix, barely an inconvenience: make it illegal
I think they just did that.
deleted by creator
Don’t worry the states are working on that as fast as they can. They’re making it a civil fine to “camp” in the wrong spot. Then you also get relocated to a shelter that has a limit on what you can bring in, including a ban on animals. If you resist at any point you end up in prison. So you have to just take losing your only companion and half of your belongings in stride. Also though, if you go to prison you lose all of your stuff. So they release you thirty days later (in the blue states) and your penniless, your dog has hopefully been adopted by someone else, and you have no clothes to survive extreme weather or any other property you need to function. So you can either die in the middle of the night to cold weather or take up that drug dealer on his offer of employment. Which ends up with a larger prison sentence down the road.
The fact that people don’t see this cycle is infuriating to me. All they see is a sidewalk that doesn’t have tents anymore and they cheer. They don’t care that they’ve permanently destroyed the lives of everyone who lived there.
There’s plenty of shelter space but you can’t do drugs there so people don’t go. But hey I guess you can use as much as you want in prison!
No there isn’t actually. The recent SCOTUS case was literally repealing a past ruling that you couldn’t do what I described above, until there was enough shelter space for all the homeless in your city/county/state.
So that’s why enforcement suddenly got juiced. They no longer need a bed available to fuck your shit up.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’ve been homeless, and staying the fuck away from the shelters is how you stay safe.
I spent one night in one once, and promptly went back to looking for hidden little spots where no one would be able to see me.
Unless you are the crustiest of old homebums, shelters are where your shit gets stolen and you get stabbed if you make a fuss. Or raped.
It’s pretty cool how the richest nation in the history of the world can’t take care of people. /s
Not can’t–won’t.
If every church in America housed 2.5 unhoused people the crisis would be solved overnight.
Who am i kidding though, American churches don’t exist to help people they exist to
taxtithe peopleWhen I feed the poor, I’m called a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I’m called a communist.
The quote is by a priest from South America. I think about that alot when I think about church.
Only monarchists think communist is an insult.
No, see, feeding the poor is illegal.
To be fair, a lot of small community churches or other religious shelters seem to do a lot more than anyone else about the problem.
Debatable.
I work for a church. We do a LOT for the community. Free lunches under the bridge. Park clean ups every season. After school programs for kids.
But in no way are we even close to doing as much good as actual organized programs that have real leadership and get funding.
$650k and still homeless. Housing market is out of control.
Housing should he a necessity of life. Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to own homes. Limit individuals to 5.
If corporations want to own “homes” then they can build an apartment complex.
Id say even max two houses. No one needs more than one anyways. The second can be for the rich assholes that need vacation homes.
That or limit it to being outside a certain radius, so you can have your house in the city and a second property out in the woods for the weekend as long as it’s, for example, 50 miles away or more and then if you want a third property it needs to be at least 50 miles away from the other two and so on. Make it impractical enough that second properties are only cottages, not rental units in the same city.
I can’t tell if you’re joking.
Why do you think I’m joking? People should be allowed to own something out of town for the weekend if they want but they’ll think about it twice if they can’t own both a rental unit and their main house in the same city, in the end it will force them to live in their rental unit along with the people renting from them, forcing them to actually care for their property.
They won’t want to own a shit load of properties either because maintaining then will be too impractical as none of them are close to one another.
It sounded kinda like: Let’s make people sell the properties they rent out so that wealthy people can buy vacation homes.
The idea is guaranteed to make homelessness worse, so it seems natural that someone might mock it.
Or control the type of ownership based on the number of doors. 1 to 4 doors > private ownership. 5 to 8 doors > corporation or cooperatives. 9 doors or more > cooperatives/non profit/State corporation.
The corporate bots downvoted you
Which they are already doing everywhere in my area. I’d say we should also limit their ownership of apartment complexes. Though that’s a tougher problem to solve.
What area…if you don’t mind getting bing up some of that sweet sweet privacy
SF Bay Area, East bay. Everything is apartments. Seems like all new developments are apartments, not houses. And obviously those will be owned by corporations.
650k people are homeless. Has nothing to do w housing market or salary.
“Data collected and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal from more than 250 homeless organizations have counted at least 550,000 homeless people so far, a 10 percent rise from last year’s reports. The numbers gathered from cities and rural areas show homelessness as it was on a single night earlier this year.
The upward trend means that the US will probably reach and pass the 2023 estimate of 653,000 homeless people. It’s the highest number since the government began sharing such data in 2007.”
I was confused by the title at first too. It should probably be “US is on track to set a new record for homelessness with over 650K people living on the streets”.
Don’t worry, we have a fix for this.
We banned them from the streets.
Definitely a gross under count of the amount of homeless people. I’d imagine due to the government only counting occupied beds in shelters, the homeless they can physically count on one day, and not the number of incarcerated homeless. The amount is three times higher!
That’s not really how it works, the census bureau is extremely thorough - they send people into encampments regularly, work with homeless charities of all kinds, etc. These counts are estimates unless it’s a federal census year (when they absolutely do count every individual person that they possibly can), but they’re not going to be wildly inaccurate.
The much bigger issue is that these numbers appear to be limited to city limits or greater city area, and that’s where the discrepancy is gonna show up. Most homeless people dont live in cities, and camps are often established on conveniently unincorporated land so they dont have to be counted. Bureaucratic bastardry at its finest.
Not sure what your point is?
WE’RE NUMBER ONE! LETS GOOO!
It’ll get worse, so don’t go making any bets or anything. I know being an optimist is cool and all, but seriously.
WHOOOO! USA #1!!!
So like 1 in
50500 pll is homeless? That’s crazy. Ther is not even a significant crisis or war directly affecting the US.Edit: I can’t readEdit II : OK, reading was fine (on the first go) I just did my math with 1million = 100* thousand … I am tired and have a cold, please excuse my many fumbles in this comment xD.
I think you’re off by a factor of 10. 650k out of 330 million is about 1 in 500. It’s still way too many people, don’t get me wrong, just wanted to clarify.
Thanks, yeah I’m not so fovused atm. But defenetly still too many homless folk.
See the guy in orange on the left?
Now, what are those toddlers dressed in fluo doing next to him?
