87
submitted 20 hours ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/usa@lemmy.ml

On May 12, California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, demanded that cities throughout the state adopt anti-camping ordinances that would effectively ban public homelessness by requiring unhoused individuals to relocate every 72 hours.

While presented as a humanitarian effort to reduce homelessness, the new policy victimizes California’s growing unhoused population—approximately 187,000 people—by tying funding in Proposition 1 to local laws banning sleeping or camping on public land.

In his announcement, Newsom pushed local governments to adopt the draconian ordinances “without delay.”

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Bronstein_Tardigrade@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 6 hours ago

I still think he is planning on running in the Republican presidential primary in 2028.

[-] vala@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Liberals gotta liberal

[-] Etterra@discuss.online 14 points 13 hours ago

Hey asshole, why don't you try building places for them to live.

[-] teagrrl@lemmy.ml 21 points 14 hours ago

I support making Gavin Newsom homeless and throwing away all his possessions like cops do when they raid encampments. After a couple of raids we arrest him for his crime of "no house" and put him in the U.S. prison system to be exploited as a prison ~~laborer~~ slave. When he has exhausted his usefulness we can dump him off with no support system whatsoever where he can languish til the end of his days.

[-] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 26 points 18 hours ago

vOtE bLuE nO mAtTeR wHo

[-] culpritus@hexbear.net 26 points 19 hours ago

Gruesome Newsom is quite the heir apparent (hair apparent?) to Genocide Joe's legacy.

not-listening liberalism biden-troll biden-harbinger

[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 19 points 19 hours ago

Even if, just for the sake of argument, you assume that these people are living in tents on the streets just because they don't feel like finding housing, which is already an absolutely massive assumption that I don't for one instant actually describes reality, there's still this...

If you believe that laws forbidding gambling, sale of liquor, sale of contraceptives, requiring definite closing hours, enforcing the Sabbath, or any such, are necessary to the welfare of your community, that is your right and I do not ask you to surrender your beliefs or give up your efforts to put over such laws. But remember that such laws are, at most, a preliminary step in doing away with the evils they indict. Moral evils can never be solved by anything as easy as passing laws alone. If you aid in passing such laws without bothering to follow through by digging in to the involved questions of sociology, economics, and psychology which underlie the causes of the evils you are gunning for, you will not only fail to correct the evils you sought to prohibit but will create a dozen new evils as well.

—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government

You can't just make a problem go away by making it illegal, you've got to address the root causes.

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 22 points 19 hours ago

They’re not trying to make the problem go away. They’re planning to arrest the homeless to use for prison labor.

[-] Etterra@discuss.online 6 points 13 hours ago

America, Land of the Free, as long as you could pay for it. I fucking love it here don't you.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

To be fair, the articles I've read about this have also indicated he wants to allocate three billion dollars to address homelessness, and that's actually a good thing, as the current policy of rampant vagrancy addressed by policing and imprisonment is not only ineffective, but vastly more costly.

But even so, it's still a ghoulish thing to say, and buckle up, because this motherfucker's going to be the next Democratic candidate for president.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 9 points 16 hours ago

the articles I’ve read about this have also indicated he wants to allocate three billion dollars to address homelessness

It will be 3 billion for hostile architecture and police crackdowns probably.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

Sadly, history would suggest that's eventually what happens. Democrats, for all their lofty rhetoric, love elevating the police as a militarized, licensed gang.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 hours ago

Yeah. Actually housing everyone needing it (and not in a shelter or concentration camp) would even cost less than the huge amount of hostile architecture and funding police harrasment*, cruelty is the point, and it is firmly in capitalist logic because this system need the visibly heavily opressed pariah class to discipline workers.

*It's not some nebulous "already spend on police" cathegory as some people claim every time the topic surfaces. Manpower, supplies and time used by police for that are clearly calculable.

this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
87 points (98.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8016 readers
390 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS