Alt Text
This cartoon has four panels. All the panels show a gritty commercial doorway – the kind that’s recessed a few feet into the building – on a city sidewalk. There’s litter and graffiti here.
There are two characters in the comic strip. The first character is a homeless man sleeping in the doorway, wearing a zip-up sweatshirt over a t-shirt and a dull red knit cap, and with a full beard. The other character is a muscular-looking cop dressed in a police uniform and carrying a baton. In defiance of tradition, he is cleanshaven. I’ll call these two characters KNITCAP and COP.
PANEL 1
Knitcap, covered by a brown blanket and with his head pillowed on some rolled-up clothes, is lying in a doorway, apparently asleep. The cop is using his baton to poke knitcap in the side. The cop has a somewhat sadistic grin.
COP: Hey, you! Get up! We’ve outlawed sleeping in public! You’re not allowed anymore!
PANEL 2
Knitcap is sitting up, rubbing sleep out of his eyes with one hand. He speaks calmly. The cop watches, smirking, arms akimbo.
KNITCAP: In that case, I guess I’ll sleep in a hotel tonight.
PANEL 3
A close-up of Knitcap. He’s stroking his chin with a hand, as if thinking through his options.
KNITCAP: Or should I sleep in my townhouse instead? Or my Hamptons place? I’ll call my butler and ask what he thinks!
PANEL 4
Knitcap, grinning, is now holding a hand next to his face, thumb and pinky finger extended, pretending it’s a phone as he talks. The cop is glaring and slapping his baton against his palm.
KNITCAP: Smithers? Smithers old boy! My super fun street sleeping holiday is done. Which of my mansions shall I sleep in tonight.
COP (thought): Next step: Outlaw sarcasm.
Thanks for introducing me to this great comic and especially the source! Here’s another great one from there:
I’ve seen this comic a few times and ma just now noticing the mouse and cat scene playing out on the corner lol
Yeah and the best part is you’re lead to believe the cat is going to ambush them when it’s just joining in!
Background details rulz!
Edit: Any idea what his shirt is supposed to say?
Looks like “No, you’re Spartacus”
No idea what that’s a reference to though.
And in that moment, I aged to dust.
Oh don’t worry I’m just horribly film illiterate
Should be reference to Spartacus’ rebelion? When defeated, the rebeling slaves were asked to point out Spartacus to which everyome of them said “I’m Spartacus”.
Or so the story goes.
A famous quote from a famous movie: “I am Spartacus”
HG: “What’s that? You’re going to put me in a nice warm cell and be required to give me three hots and a cot?”
PO: .oO(Next step. Outlaw human rights.)
The constitutional amendment that outlawed slavery in the US provided one exception: anyone convicted of a crime.
This was a tool of Jim Crow to maintain a sizeable black slave labor force via disproportionate criminalization of black people and poverty (newly-freed previous slaves were very poor, often illiterate). It was and is a tool of modern racialized hyper-exploited labor via the prison system. And it is likely a tool that US authorities are keeping in their back pocket for the mass criminalization of the homeless.
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.
Anatole France
Honestly, right wingers and elites have the short sighted and sick obsession with simply jailing whoever they don’t like for various reasons.
This obsession with controlling the masses has already created the largest Prison Population per capita in the US. The result? Prisons give US capitalists a ready source of slave labor, and gives them complete control over the population at large.
This control is exerted via forcing compliance to societal norms through threat of incarceration, as well as the more obvious form of control via stripping of the autonomy of those already incarcerated.
Ultimately only narcicists and megalomaniacs and their most sycophantic bootlickers would remain free if these sick fascists had their way, and they (and the rest of us) would find themselves residing within a hell of their own creation: a truly fucked world where only the most power hungry are free…and truthfully they wouldn’t actually be free.
Their lust for power would innevitably become their fetters.
I mean, whether this cartoon makes sense heavily depends on where you’re at. In parts of Europe people choose to sleep on the streets even though they would get free sleeping places in social projects. (And they have their own reasons for that, and it’s fine. But still: they have that option here, it’s not like they are forced to sleep on the street).
This is true. Although many shelters disallow drug taking or alcohol
The cat is playing poker with two mice in the last panel.
There’s some real societal stigma against living and working out of a vehicle and I think thats hurting lots of people right now.
I think that we should promote living in vehicles and the nomadic lifestyle as a legitimate alternative to the conventional housing and renting system, while getting the government dollars to flow into charities like the homes on wheels alliance to help buy and convert used vehicles into minimal living spaces for those in need.
The current housing market is fucked, the current renting market is fucked, more and more people are forced to choose between paying rent and not dying of starvation, inevitably choosing the latter and getting evicted. Its going to take either a complete breakdown of the system or decades of gradual correction to fix these problems at all. In the meantime, let’s swallow our pride and accept that living in a pod on wheels is better than living on the street.
Also, I think the big issue with homelessness from the perspective of most people is visibility. Its not an issue as long as you can’t see it and it doesnt affect property values. Putting people in cars helps take away some visibility of that reality for the yuppies and homeowners who can’t stand seeing such things. One of the comments here complained about seeing a homeless person shamelessly popping under a bridge. If that homeless person had a blacked-out van with a sleeping cot and had pooped in a bucket out of view you would never know what’s going on in that random van.
Of course some homeless people are just nasty pricks who dont give a fuck and would shit in public anyways hard on that Diogenes philosophy, but thats human nature for you.
I’m not sure “out of sight, out of mind” is a good solution to the unaffordability of housing in our late stage capitalism society.
Certainly a modest proposal.
If they outlaw sarcasm I’m going straight to the death penalty. It was nice reading up all these posts to entertain my brain 🧠 in between tasks!
Background details rule!!
I have bit of a nuanced take on the subject (ie: I’m going to get downvoted into oblivion.)
So here goes. To me Homelessness isn’t the problem. Rampant drug addiction and mental illness are. For the mental illness part, we need comprehensive and affordable mental health care for everyone. That’s not going to happen in my lifetime though.
The drug addiction however…
Places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Vancouver (where I’m from) have followed the decriminalization theory of drug rehabilitation. This posits that by providing clean drug paraphernalia and safe places to use drugs, will help people to overcome addiction. But the current state of these cities prove that this theory is false. In order to make someone change, they have to want to change. When you make drug use easier, there is less incentive for that person to want to get clean. Homelessness and the accompanying problems are to most of them just the “cost of doing business.”
Their lives should be made more difficult as to incentivize them to want to change their ways. Of course there should be certain exceptions, such as when it’s too hot or cold out. But we have to somehow give them a reason to change their ways.
At least where I live there are systems in place to help you get off the street. I would know as I was homeless for a year living on the street. But when COVID hit, I finally had enough and decided to get help. I went to a shelter, got signed up for disability and through BC housing I got myself a room in a shared complex. I’m proof that when you really try, there is help out there for you to make your life better.
Now bring on the downvotes.
Drug addictions spiral out of control because their lifes suck and they want an escape. If you make their lifes harder you dont help anyone. Drug addiction should be treated in the same way as mental illness.
But the most effective way to help them is to give them a perspective and a way to get out of their situation before they have to stop using the drugs, i.e. give them housing and have a doctor supply them their drugs, then slowly taper them off.
Or just dont let people get homeless in the first place.
I know it’s almost an oxymoron, but homeless is closely tied to housing prices.
If you lost your job how long would you be able to keep living where you are? Maybe a long time, but for maybe 10% of the population it’s a much shorter frame. Add on some other twists of fate (or bad planning): a medical emergency; an abusive spouse; an unplanned pregnancy; a substance abuse problem; and you have a concoction that could land you on the streets in a few months if not weeks.
The “free drug paraphernalia” (e.g. services to help save addicts lives) has followed the wave of addicts, not the other way around. People were dying long before they showed up.
Affordable housing, shelters, and housing first programs are the real keys to solving this. But there’s a lot of people who would rather eat their right arm than see a drug addict (or other undesirable) get government assistance.
Lots and lots of disabled people, even with disability income. The affordable housing wait list in some major cities is several years.
When you make drug use easier, there is less incentive for that person to want to get clean.
You seem to have some very naive ideas about drug abuse. Drug addicts always have problems that caused them to become drug addicts. For someone without underlying problems, getting clean is its own reward and requires no extra incentives. If you truly care about getting people off drugs, you have to fix the problems that caused them to become addicts in the first place, but that’s difficult and expensive so nobody wants to talk about it.
I’m with you on the point that (mental) healthcare should be affordable and accessible. Drug use however isn’t the problem, but merely a symptom as well. Figure out why people turn to drugs, solve the underlying issue (generally mental health related), and the drug issue is gone.
Pretending like people who have issues with homeless people camping just hate the idea of seeing poor people in the presence is a massive straw man.
A lot of homeless who choose to camp in heavily urban areas are deeply disturbed, and almost proudly violate every rule of society.
I’d think that if society fucked me over enough to the point that I had to sleep on her streets, I’d proudly violate all the rules too.
You expect people to respect the institution that bent them over until they broke? Fuck that.
Respect is reciprocal. I’ll give it at first but if it’s obvious I’m not getting any back, then there’s no sense in continuing to give it.
Something about a dog biting back after being kicked around enough
So on that last part, residents in areas with a high population of disruptive homeless would feel well within their rights to criminalize their behavior.
To that I would say society is failing them either further.
How much does it cost to criminalize homelessness? Between enforcement, jailing, feeding, clothing, trials, lawyers, DAs, etc. It’s a fucking fortune.
Why do we go right to the stick, when the carrot is cheaper and more humane? Why aren’t we helping them instead of spending more money to strip away whatever shreds of dignity they have left?
God forbid we help people down on their luck. Much better for us to exert even more effort and capital to dehumanize them. Surely that’ll keep everyone from choosing a vagrant lifestyle and make them pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
I bet you haven’t heard what those British MPs said about homelessness.
Considering this is meant to be NYC, I don’t really think that’s relevant.
This attitude towards homelessness is not unique to NYC.
Already in the works:“Safer Kentucky Act"
I’ve seen this comment before and I hate it. The second that NON WHITE homeless dude talked back to the white cop he’d have a face full of curb and probably be on his way to jail if not death. What kind of ridiculously naive person drew this?
I travel to the West Coast a lot. SF, Portland and Seattle are crawling with homeless. Urban Highways in the PNW have tons of homeless camping on the sides of the road as well as in and around residential areas. During my last trip I was greeted in the morning to a view of a homeless person taking a shit under a bridge next to the river where my hotel was located.
Communities have a right to regulate how the public commons is used. If outlawing sleeping in the commons is needed to clean up homelessness in their city then so be it.
Let them sleep in your hotel then
Or let’s discuss the millions of empty residential and commercial real estate properties that exist to sit on some Balance Sheet.
If you feel that way you could always break out your credit card and get a hotel room for a rando homeless person. 👍
Only to get closer to that yourself? Endebted and on a brink of bankruptcy?
Those who have wealth should be first in the line. They won’t have to risk losing everything.
Very brave of you risking other people’s money.
“Other people’s money” of the rich is most commonly the surplus value, i.e. our money that were taken away.
But without going into semantics, most people live in financial conditions that don’t allow them to be so generous, or else they risk losing everything themselves. Those holding billions will not suffer much spending large money supporting the poor. It’s just not correct to draw parralels.
If I’ll give enough money for someone to live through a week, I’ll be left broke and won’t be able to pay my rent and food. If Elon Musk would do the same, he wouldn’t even notice.
“Other people’s money” of the rich is most commonly the surplus value, i.e. our money that were taken away.
But without going into semantics, most people live in financial conditions that don’t allow them to be so generous, or else they risk losing everything themselves. Those holding billions will not suffer much spending large money supporting the poor. It’s just not correct to draw parralels.
If I’ll give enough money for someone to live through a week, I’ll be left broke and won’t be able to pay my rent and food. If Elon Musk would do the same, he wouldn’t even notice.
You seem to think that there are Elon Musks in every city that can be taxed and won’t be affected.
Homeless don’t just congregate in neighborhoods with the ultra wealthy who have lots of money to throw around. The reality is they live everywhere including blue collar and middle class cities and suburbs. Most of whom live paycheck to paycheck. When you talk about funding homeless shelters this is whom you are taking money from. Money that could go to their kids schools, the roads they drive on, the parks they visit.
Please feel free to throw yourself on the pyre of your own platitudes. But don’t expect others to follow.
Yes, homeless are normally forcefully pushed out of wealthy areas, because they interrupt scenic views of places where the wealthy isolate themselves from the horrors they cause.
And shelters should be funded on the federal level, from a progressive tax, not by municipalities.
Or you could just give them homes for a lower cost than criminalizing and incarcerating them.
Or you could just give them homes for a lower cost than criminalizing and incarcerating them.
You’re pretty aggressive trying to give away someone else’s money.
Maybe you could aggressively give away your own money and get them a hotel room to start.
Or you can since you seem to be the one so against reasonable limits be placed on housing costs. Or it seems more like you don’t give a shit about them and don’t want them inconveniencing you or even in your line of sight.
Or you can since you seem to be the one so against reasonable limits be placed on housing costs.
I never made any statement referencing housing costs.
Or it seems more like you don’t give a shit about them and don’t want them inconveniencing you or even in your line of sight.
Shitting in full view of a hotel, yep I’m not for that.
Were there some free accessible public toilets in the vicinity?
I’m not the toilet police, if you want to map out all public toilets and distribute a map to the homeless, please be my guest.
I’m serious though.
I’m French so the issue might not be exactly the same in the USA.
But in most of our major cities there used to be a lot of public toilets. Granted they weren’t very sanitary but they gave everyone a reasonable access to the basic necessity of shitting in peace.
Then - due to shrinking budgets and stupid policies - they almost disappeared. Now you have a few “self cleaning” ones but very few and far between.
And yeah there are maps available at least for Paris but it’s pretty useless if you’ve got a 20’ walk to do your deed.
Fuck. This. Conclusion.
Cities in the US have always been able to police sleeping in public spaces GIVEN there was an alternative (e.g. a non-full shelter) where people could go to instead. What changed with the new US supreme court ruling is that they are now allowed to do this regardless of weather or not there is any alternatives.
People need to sleep. It is a biological necessity. Homelessness is often not a choice, but can be temporary if the right resources are available.
How narcissistic do you have to be to think that the person you witnessed wanted to be there? Homelessness is out of control on the west-coast of the US (and elsewhere) but fines and jail time aren’t going to make these people magically stop existing.
Side note: Multiple studies have shown that homelessness is directly correlated to housing affordability. If you want to help fight homelessness, support building more affordable housing (which usually equates to denser housing).
Cities in the US have always been able to police sleeping in public spaces GIVEN there was an alternative (e.g. a non-full shelter) where people could go to instead. What changed with the new US supreme court ruling is that they are now allowed to do this regardless of weather or not there is any alternatives.
Cities always had this right the Supreme Court just upheld it.
How narcissistic do you have to be to think that the person you witnessed wanted to be there?
I never stated that.
Homelessness is out of control on the west-coast of the US (and elsewhere) but fines and jail time aren’t going to make these people magically stop existing.
I don’t see homeless encampments out in the open by highways in other parts of the country. Yes there are homeless, but it is on a whole other level on the West Coast.
Side note: Multiple studies have shown that homelessness is directly correlated to housing affordability. If you want to help fight homelessness, support building more affordable housing (which usually equates to denser housing).
Cool idea sounds like something you should fight for in your community.
This is about human rights vs. city spending
When someone posts about how unpleasant it is to see other humans sleeping/eating/pooping and concludes from that cities should be able to stop them (or throw them in jail) to make themselves feel better; the implication is that these people have alternatives and are just being rude or lazy.
I’m pointing out that many of these people are stuck and have no alternative. By appealing this case to the supreme court, Grants Pass (an city) was admitting that these people had no alternative and they still wanted to punish them.
The one basic rule that was upheld by the ninth circuit was that cities must first give them an alternative. If they have no alternatives, then it is cruel and unusual punishment. I don’t know how anyone can argue that it is not cruel to throw someone in jail for sleeping in their car (one of the plaintiffs was sleeping in her car) when they have no where else to go. People need to sleep: it is not a choice.
Additionally, large homeless encampments in other parts of the country has two main drivers:
- In many cities, the majority of the homeless population is sheltered (there’s enough shelter beds). e.g. NYC
- In other parts of the country (e.g. not any of the cities you mentioned) housing is more affordable, often because the population centers aren’t as large (see Wyoming)
This is about human rights vs. city spending
Feel free to campaign to spend your local funds on the homeless rather than schools, parks, etc. I don’t presume to impose my beliefs on another locality. I’m merely pointing out each city and state has the right to set their own respective laws regulating the public commons.
When someone posts about how unpleasant it is to see other humans sleeping/eating/pooping and concludes from that cities should be able to stop them (or throw them in jail) to make themselves feel better; the implication is that these people have alternatives and are just being rude or lazy.
I never stated or implied any indication that those people are rude or lazy. That is entirely of your own making. I’m merely making the point that they are occupying the public commons and the public has the right to regulate that space as they see fit. While sharing my first hand experience as to why they may seek to restrict vagrancy.
I’m pointing out that many of these people are stuck and have no alternative. By appealing this case to the supreme court, Grants Pass (an city) was admitting that these people had no alternative and they still wanted to punish them.
The one basic rule that was upheld by the ninth circuit was that cities must first give them an alternative. If they have no alternatives, then it is cruel and unusual punishment. I don’t know how anyone can argue that it is not cruel to throw someone in jail for sleeping in their car (one of the plaintiffs was sleeping in her car) when they have no where else to go. People need to sleep: it is not a choice.
If you travel to other countries you are often required to show that you have accommodations to stay and a return ticket. Otherwise they will not allow you to enter the country. So there is precedent for these types of laws.
However the United States is Federal Republic that has a number of states with a patchwork of laws. As a citizen you are guaranteed the right to travel freely but you are also subject to local laws. If the citizenry has freely elected politicians who have enacted laws deeming vagrancy illegal and that law stands up to judicial review then that is the law until the public is convinced to elect officials who will change that law.
The west coast is fairly liberal as compared to most of the rest of the country. The problem with vagrants has become such an issue that the public seeks a more restrictive approach. I prefer to respect the will of the public who live there annd experience the problem first hand over your sympathetic platitudes.
Additionally, large homeless encampments in other parts of the country has two main drivers:
- In many cities, the majority of the homeless population is sheltered (there’s enough shelter beds). e.g. NYC
- In other parts of the country (e.g. not any of the cities you mentioned) housing is more affordable, often because the population centers aren’t as large (see Wyoming)
Mostly true, you’re leaving out weather as a factor. Being homeless without shelter in Wyoming is much more difficult and life threatening in winter months than California or Florida. I’d much rather sleep on a sunny California beach than the cold wind swept plains.
Feel free to campaign to spend your local funds on the homeless rather than schools, parks, etc.
Obviously city budgets are a whole other can of worms, but to be clear, shelter beds are almost always cheaper than jail beds. The cheapest option would be not to put people in jail.
I’m merely pointing out each city and state has the right to set their own respective laws regulating the public commons
This isn’t a question of legality or ability! Obviously in the US it is now legal to fine and imprison people for sleeping in public spaces. This is a question of morality: is that law moral? Should we fine and imprison people for not being able to afford a roof over their heads?
If the majority that you respect gets together and votes to, idk, enslave a group of people and have them work on sugar plantations. That doesn’t mean their laws aren’t violating basic human rights, just because it’s legal.
If you travel to other countries you are often required to show that you have accommodations to stay and a return ticket. Otherwise they will not allow you to enter the country. So there is precedent for these types of laws.
What are you talking about? Unhoused people aren’t tourists. We’re talking about citizens of a country, the vast majority of whom were born and raised there.
The problem with vagrants has become such an issue that the public seeks a more restrictive approach. I prefer to respect the will of the public who live there annd experience the problem first hand over your sympathetic platitudes.
How kind of you to respect the will of the people denying the humanity of their fellow citizens… Are you saying you personally don’t have an opinion on the matter? Does homelessness not affect you?
Obviously city budgets are a whole other can of worms, but to be clear, shelter beds are almost always cheaper than jail beds. The cheapest option would be not to put people in jail.
Sounds great, feel free to advocate for that solution within your community. Your keyboard warrior skills are sharp, I’m sure the community will rally around your idea of spending money on homeless over schools and other services!
This isn’t a question of legality or ability! Obviously in the US it is now legal to fine and imprison people for sleeping in public spaces. This is a question of morality: is that law moral? Should we fine and imprison people for not being able to afford a roof over their heads?
Moral? Yes, yes it is. We should not expect a handful of communities\states to bear the social and financial cost of housing homeless from other parts of the country just because they are attractive destinations. They have every right to dissuade further immigration of homeless to their community.
If the majority that you respect gets together and votes to, idk, enslave a group of people and have them work on sugar plantations. That doesn’t mean their laws aren’t violating basic human rights, just because it’s legal.
Classic example of a false equivalency fallacy. No one is violating the constitution or advocating for enslavement. Comparing the two is the same as when people start comparing modern groups in the US to WW2 Nazis. Sorry there is no comparison.
As stated before the community has a right to regulate the public commons. You don’t have a right to sleep, eat, litter and shit on the street in front of a families house for years on end. It is a public health and safety hazard.
What are you talking about? Unhoused people aren’t tourists. We’re talking about citizens of a country, the vast majority of whom were born and raised there.
You seemed to have missed or are being intentionally obtuse about the last part of that statement. I pointed out that this is an example of a precedent for similar laws at the state level.
How kind of you to respect the will of the people denying the humanity of their fellow citizens… Are you saying you personally don’t have an opinion on the matter? Does homelessness not affect you?
How elitist of you to ignore the will of the people. You seem to want to impose your morality at the cost of other people’s communities.
Yes homelessness affects me. My kids went to a school with the largest percentage of homeless children in attendance in the country. I’ve had to pull my kid out of a class because of a homeless child with mental issues who would violently attack teacher’s, students and even my own kid. In one class there wasn’t a day for two weeks straight when the class had to stand outside while the teachers and admins tried to deal with the kid.
I can sympathize with the homeless kid and hope they get help. But I will not put their welfare over the safety and education of my own.
There is a social cost to what you are proposing. Those communities and the people affected within them have found that cost to be too high.
Your keyboard warrior skills are sharp…
Thanks.
We should not expect a handful of communities\states to bear the social and financial cost of housing homeless from other parts of the country just because they are attractive destinations.
It seems we have different concepts about where unhoused people come from. Are they coming from other states? Or are they losing housing while residing where they are?
This survey at least, would indicate the latter: https://sfstandard.com/2023/05/22/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/
The city that brought the case, Grants Pass, is not a fancy tourist destination (and isn’t really liberal). It is regularly below freezing in the winter, rains often, and is nowhere near a beach. Further, it has comparatively few resources for unhoused people. It’s mid-sized (40,000 or so) and it’s relatively isolated: why would an unhoused person go there to sleep on the street?
Classic example of a false equivalency fallacy. No one is violating the constitution or advocating for enslavement.
Did not mean to imply that they were equivalent. Just using an extreme example to show that the majority can be wrong, and that it is nonsense to base your morality on what is legal or what your able to do.
The case WAS made that penalizing people for sleeping in public spaces when they have nowhere else to go violates the 8th amendment; and while the majority of the supreme court did not agree, I maintain that is immoral and wrong to do so, and that a city choosing to do so would fall under “cruel and unusual punishment”, violating the US constitution.
It is a public health and safety hazard.
I totally agree. Communities should do something about this; but regardless of what they do it is going to take money away that could have been used on other things (schools and other services). Jail and police aren’t free. Shelter beds aren’t free.
How elitist of you to ignore the will of the people. You seem to want to impose your morality at the cost of other people’s communities.
Advocating for the humane treatment of others isn’t ignoring the will of the people. I’m not a czar and I’m not advocating for fascist policies. I’m saying that unhoused people are people; and they deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and empathy. Fining and jailing people who have nowhere else to go is immoral, regardless if people have voted to say that it’s okay.
I can sympathize with the homeless kid and hope they get help. But I will not put their welfare over the safety and education of my own.
How would helping this child be in conflict with the welfare for your children? In many states there are early childhood intervention programs basically for this exact issue.
There is a social cost to what you are proposing. Those communities and the people affected within them have found that cost to be too high.
You can either pay with money, or with the cost of having homeless children in your community. Putting unhoused people in jail costs money and is cruel. Building and running a shelter costs money. Leaving people on the street without any alternatives (as many cities have done) is horrible.
Of course, there is a percentage of people who you just can’t help, and for them it could be necessary to use a more heavy hand. But that’s mostly not what we’ve been discussing; which is, what should cities be allowed to do regardless of shelter beds or other alternatives?
Where are these magical places that provide enough beds? I’m not doubting you, I just haven’t ever heard of any.
NYC is a classic example of a US city where homelessness is less visible because they provide shelters and other public services. That is NOT to say that homelessness isn’t an issue there, it 100% is. Its just that it looks different than in, say, Seattle.
Europe (in general, though it varies) also has a large percentage of it’s homeless population sheltered.
Hope there are enough homeless shelters for them to move into. Otherwise you would be suggesting the inconvenience you face from having to see them sleep in the streets justifies making it impossible for them to in their desperate situation have even that.
Yep, sure do hope those communities are wealthy enough to support housing the homeless. I wonder how that will play out with the local tax payer when they are deciding how to allocate money to local schools, the park system or a homeless shelter.
I wonder how they would like to see their tax dollars spent…🫤
Said communities would rather indirectly “house” them in tax-funded prisons? I’d point them to studies on how incarcerating and enforcing these laws end up costing Americans more than it does to house people, such as this: https://homelessvoice.org/the-cost-to-criminalize-homelessness/
What a strange state of affairs. People may not live outdoors because that looks unsightly. But you will also not give them a place to go.
No, but incarceration may prove to be a deterrent to other homeless. California, Oregon and Washington would not be as attractive destinations if they know they will go to jail shortly after arriving without a place to stay. Especially if that homeless person has dependents. They may be better incentivized to stay in their own state and seek help locally.
Do you… actually think this solves anything? Like, at all? It’s short-sighted, pointless, and genuinely selfish. “I don’t like looking at the unhoused, so they need to go… elsewhere.”
Housing is becoming unaffordable for the middle class, what are these people supposed to do!? We as a society have abandoned them, and it’s now costing more money to harass and bully them, and to get them some semblance of health care and remove their bodies when they die out in the streets than it would to house them. Look it up! We have enough housing for everyone, but investments in homes and AirBNB and time shares and tourist rentals and property management companies have to continue making rich assholes more money every year…
The moment living on the streets is a choice for all the unhoused in this country is when I will join with you to regulate where they choose to slum it and not a second before.
Do you… actually think this solves anything? Like, at all? It’s short-sighted, pointless, and genuinely selfish. “I don’t like looking at the unhoused, so they need to go… elsewhere.”
No it’s a sanitation, public health and safety issue. Citizens who live there and experience the problem first hand feel the same way or they would not be passing vagrancy laws.
Housing is becoming unaffordable for the middle class, what are these people supposed to do!? We as a society have abandoned them, and it’s now costing more money to harass and bully them, and to get them some semblance of health care and remove their bodies when they die out in the streets than it would to house them. Look it up! We have enough housing for everyone, but investments in homes and AirBNB and time shares and tourist rentals and property management companies have to continue making rich assholes more money every year…
Yep, all of which are issues caused by low interest rates and the elevation of capital over labor. Raise rates, reshore jobs, make unions more powerful and housing will change.
The moment living on the streets is a choice for all the unhoused in this country is when I will join with you to regulate where they choose to slum it and not a second before.
If they were living in your back yard you may think differently.
![[Lefty Cartoons] Let’s Outlaw Being Homeless! That’ll Work!](https://feddit.org/pictrs/image/30c824c8-ccf8-4951-b2d5-d26038e65f12.png){kind=link}