245
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
245 points (95.9% liked)
News
23296 readers
1296 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
To whoever wrote the headline: How can it possibly help?
It "helps" the NIMBYs who want them off the streets by any means necessary.
--Those same NIMBY's, probably
The irony here is that housing-first strategies are the best way to do that. They’re also the one these asshats are against.
The best way that isn't cruel. But since homeless people supposedly deserve it... you have to punish the poor for being poor after all. Sure, they can't afford the bootstraps, but that's not excuse not to pull themselves up by them.
Except the means of helping to get them homes of course.
These sorts of "concerned citizens" are happy to give the homeless a prison cell for a home.
they'll happily spend $150,000 a head to make sure those homeless people are housed in a prison instead of near their community
Not saying I agree with this position, but I’ll pass along the argument that CA’s governor makes.
CA has a lot of empty shelter beds, and they couldn’t clear some camps unless they had enough beds to house everyone. It was all or nothing. They couldn’t say “we have enough beds in the county for half of the encampments, so we’ll only clear the half that have the largest public health and safety problems.”
Basically, CA only wants to jail people if a bed exists and isn’t being used. Problem is, some states / counties will look at this broad ruling and will just people in jail, bed or not.
Also, this ruling doesn’t account for shelter quality. Sometimes the street is actually safer than a shelter, and arresting a person for prioritizing safety is pretty shitty.
I know it sounds rational but that's not a good faith argument from the governor. What he wants is to be able to force people into subpar living conditions instead of making shelters and temporary housing actually work.
It's just another way for them to use the police while telling everyone they're really actually helping.
Doesn't California notoriously have an extreme shortage of shelter beds? I've heard it compared unfavorable to New York this way plenty of times.
http://calmatters.org/explainers/californias-homelessness-crisis-explained/
Yes. CA only has enough beds for half of the unhoused population, but significantly less than half of the unhoused population is claiming a bed.
For example, even though San Francisco and Oakland have fewer beds than unhoused people, last year SF had 10% of its beds empty and a few years before that, Oakland was coming in at 36% vacant. I don’t know what the current numbers are.
I don’t agree with this policy, but CA wants to jail people when there is a vacancy and someone is refusing to take the bed. Before this court ruling, CA could not do that.
Ah, I understand now. Ya, that's not good. And I know what you mean about some shelters being less than the streets. Like, not personally, but I've heard stories about lots of thefts in those places, or things like that.
Yeah, IMHO, the high court should’ve said that you need a safe place for someone to stay if you’re going to force an individual off the street. If you don’t have nearly enough shelter beds for your entire homeless population, and a 1/3rd of your shelter beds are not being used, then there is something about that shelter system that probably needs to be fixed.
And that said, at least CA is trying to fill vacancies. There are places that are going to arrest people even if no bed exists. And that is just going to continue to push more and more unhoused people to coastal states that are less cruel.
Was it written by a human with no sense or by an AI (also with no sense)? 🤔
It's the BBC, so I'm giving the benefit of doubt that it was just written by a really out of touch human. The actual article is pretty good coverage and highlights why it's such a terrible decision.
The only thing in the article that even slightly implies "help" is this line:
So, headline seems to be intentionally click/rage bait even though the article itself is pretty sound.
It’s a headline intended to illicit a response and it seems to have worked.
Exactly
I was homeless through some pretty terrible circumstances but it turns out it's illegal to be homeless, so I decided not to be homeless anymore /s
It's clearly rage-bait 🙄 congrats, you're their target demographic