I understand it's tongue-in-cheek, but you're actually describing a real problem Starbucks and other casual-style restaurants (McDonalds) have in Seattle. The downtown business districts are almost completely overrun by homelessness and many places in the area have stopped offering seating and only offer counter pick-up and standing tables/rails.
I spent a month in China and saw one homeless person there who was disabled and panhandljng by a tourist location. The subways and trains and stations had no one pissing on the ground, no one sleeping there (except officeworkers resting their eyes on their commute). There were no human feeces on the ground.
Maybe, just maybe we dont have to throw our hands up in the air and say theres nothing to do while we allow a small group of people to make our cities unlivable.
> Now the public is on the hook for them. Plus, more jails will be needed if you wanna move all the unhoused in there.
> Maybe its easier just to build more housing.
Maybe instead of letting a George Carlin joke from 30 years ago become reality by calling them something different, patting ourselves on the back, then delegating responsibility to whoever's not building houses and subsequently (often) protest the construction of those houses, we should accept that the public is and should be on the hook for them. If not, then we're just a bunch of pathetic individualists who haven't realized the social safety around them is about as strong as cheap wet toilet paper.
Living somewhere is not on its own a contribution to society, and building more housing is not enough to uplift people out of severe fentanyl or meth addiction; people on the street are not having conversations about esoteric zoning policies and hoping studio apartments stay at only $2500/m because supply increased marginally quicker over the next 10 years while birth rates dropped and immigration slowed.
Supply is an issue, but it's often a red herring. Homeless people are the public, we are the public, blight and suffering within society is society's issue, not just when the Olympics roll around or the leader of a major foreign nation rolls up
having the public on the "hook" for them is more responsible than forcing private establishments to pick up the tab. starbucks doesn't want to be on the hook for them either.
They're not the kind of people that can afford housing nor the kind that are able to get a rental contract in the first place. And if they had money they'd just shoot up more. Not trying to diss them but that's just reality.
There's very few people homeless because they can't afford it even despite the insane rent prices. Usually it's a ton of untreated mental issues and/or drug addiction.
Building more houses will help regular people a ton but not the homeless. More shelters will. Good and affordable mental healthcare too. But that's "communism" so I guess that won't fly in MAGA America.
Uhh as opposed to some private business that should just, what, deal with it? Who else should be responsible for solving homelessness if not the public?
I understand it's tongue-in-cheek, but you're actually describing a real problem Starbucks and other casual-style restaurants (McDonalds) have in Seattle. The downtown business districts are almost completely overrun by homelessness and many places in the area have stopped offering seating and only offer counter pick-up and standing tables/rails.
Homeless people do it all the time in certain cities. And because judges won't jail them for crimes police have stopped trying.
How will jailing them help? Now the public is on the hook for them. Plus, more jails will be needed if you wanna move all the unhoused in there.
Maybe its easier just to build more housing.
I spent a month in China and saw one homeless person there who was disabled and panhandljng by a tourist location. The subways and trains and stations had no one pissing on the ground, no one sleeping there (except officeworkers resting their eyes on their commute). There were no human feeces on the ground.
Maybe, just maybe we dont have to throw our hands up in the air and say theres nothing to do while we allow a small group of people to make our cities unlivable.
15 replies →
> Now the public is on the hook for them. Plus, more jails will be needed if you wanna move all the unhoused in there.
> Maybe its easier just to build more housing.
Maybe instead of letting a George Carlin joke from 30 years ago become reality by calling them something different, patting ourselves on the back, then delegating responsibility to whoever's not building houses and subsequently (often) protest the construction of those houses, we should accept that the public is and should be on the hook for them. If not, then we're just a bunch of pathetic individualists who haven't realized the social safety around them is about as strong as cheap wet toilet paper.
Living somewhere is not on its own a contribution to society, and building more housing is not enough to uplift people out of severe fentanyl or meth addiction; people on the street are not having conversations about esoteric zoning policies and hoping studio apartments stay at only $2500/m because supply increased marginally quicker over the next 10 years while birth rates dropped and immigration slowed.
Supply is an issue, but it's often a red herring. Homeless people are the public, we are the public, blight and suffering within society is society's issue, not just when the Olympics roll around or the leader of a major foreign nation rolls up
having the public on the "hook" for them is more responsible than forcing private establishments to pick up the tab. starbucks doesn't want to be on the hook for them either.
They're not the kind of people that can afford housing nor the kind that are able to get a rental contract in the first place. And if they had money they'd just shoot up more. Not trying to diss them but that's just reality.
There's very few people homeless because they can't afford it even despite the insane rent prices. Usually it's a ton of untreated mental issues and/or drug addiction.
Building more houses will help regular people a ton but not the homeless. More shelters will. Good and affordable mental healthcare too. But that's "communism" so I guess that won't fly in MAGA America.
5 replies →
The public is already on the hook for them. With jails at least we get our public spaces back
> Now the public is on the hook for them.
Uhh as opposed to some private business that should just, what, deal with it? Who else should be responsible for solving homelessness if not the public?
1 reply →
>Now the public is on the hook for them.
Prisoners can pay for their share by providing their labor.
7 replies →
Interesting. Can a tourist set up a tent in New York City in order to not pay ridiculous hotel fees or this is allowed only to citizens?
If you have anything to lose you can’t be homeless (or they’ll take it from you first).
Once you’re judgement proof do whatever you want.
2 replies →
In Switzerland you can rent a tent on a balcony on airbnb
how prevalent. is hate on homeless people in the usa?