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.
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.
What the fuck? They're homeless. Sleeping outside is their only option. Shelters are often dangerous, very restrictive on who they let in and there aren't anywhere near enough of them in the places they need to be.
Sleeping in public places isn't a fucking crime. It's not like they'd choose the park over an apartment if they had one.
Yes, but if it's criminalized you get to remove the eyesore of struggling poor people with the added benefit of fines and imprisonment.
Also prisoners are slave labor thanks to the 13th amendment so if you can take people off the street and chuck them in jail, you get free labor. Yay capitalism. /s
How effective do they expect fining homeless people to be?
Extremely effective. It's not about housing them...
Can't pay the fine, believe it or not, jail.
Also a lot of them are ran by Christians. Can't imagine they treat gay people equally
Not to mention you get kicked out of the shelter in the morning and can’t return until the evening, assuming you’re back in time to get a bed.
It's tricky, because allowing it to happen creates massive public health and environmental disasters:
These aren't the "oh, poor innocent homeless, down on their luck" portrayed by advocates, they are drug addicts and thieves, leeching off society, and actively making life worse for themselves and everyone else.
Studies show the majority of homeless people have jobs. Furthermore they didn't have one big reason for going homeless. They just couldn't afford housing and eventually they are unable to pay. People report sliding into homelessness over the course of years as the cost of housing kept rising without pay rising.
Trying to depict all homeless people as junkies is disingenuous at best.
That was the estimate from the University of Chicago in 2021 which has since been actively been disproven by point in time counts of actual homeless people.
The Chicago stat:
https://endhomelessness.org/blog/employed-and-experiencing-homelessness-what-the-numbers-show/
"53% of people living in homeless shelters and 40% of unsheltered people were employed, either full or part-time, in the year that people were observed homeless between 2011 – 2018."
The reality is almost the exact opposite:
https://socialinnovation.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Homelessness-and-Employment.pdf
"According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority’s (LAHSA) 2019 Adult Demographic Survey, over 50% of single adults (24 and older) experiencing unsheltered homelessness in Los Angeles County are unemployed (LAHSA, 2019a). Of those unemployed, approximately half reported that they are actively looking for work. The same survey found that 49% of unsheltered adults in family units are unemployed, but a much higher percentage of them (36%) are actively looking for work than single adults. Additionally, 46% of unsheltered adults cited unemployment or a financial reason as a primary reason why they are homeless (LAHSA, 2019a)."
And:
"According to the same survey, about 20% of single adults experiencing unsheltered homelessness in Los Angeles County are working, including full-time, part-time, seasonal, and self-employment compared to about 32% of unsheltered adults in family units (LAHSA, 2019a). Not only are people experiencing homelessness employed at low rates, but evidence shows that those who are employed report very low annual earnings (California Policy Lab, 2020). In Los Angeles County, employed people experiencing homelessness earned an average of just under $10,000 in the year prior to experiencing homelessness (California Policy Lab, 2020)."
So first of all, you're comparing two different regions. Second 51 percent of people in the document you linked have an income and 36 percent are seeking work. Third, you should really read their myths document. It pretty clearly refutes all of your claims.
While employment helps people stay housed, it does not guarantee housing. As many as 40%-60% of people experiencing homelessness have a job, but housing is unaffordable because wages have not kept up with rising rents. There is no county or state where a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a modest apartment. At minimum wage, people have to work 86 hours a week to afford a one-bedroom. Even when people can afford a home, one is not always available. In 1970, the United States had a surplus of 300,000 affordable homes. Today, only 37 affordable homes are available for every 100 extremely low-income renters. As a result, 70% of the lowest-wage households spend more than half their income on rent, placing them at high risk of homelessness when unexpected expenses (such as car repairs and medical bills) arise. Source
Perhaps if they had housing and sufficient social nets so they didn't have to steal to eat and places they could get managed drug doses (you can't just quit, especially without resources) then this wouldn't be a problem.
It's not like people choose to be problems and homeless. Almost all Americans are one or two bad turns away from joining them.
A fine on existing.
I didn't think they'd actually start setting up Sanctuary Districts in 2024, but it looks like that's their eventual goal...
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Bell_Riots
Too bad we don't have a Gabriel Bell.
Open up the governor's mansion so they can sleep indoors
With this lineup, the SC is going to make execution the punishment for not having gainful employment. Only half sarcastic.
Sounds like we’re running out of orphans for the orphan-crushing machine.
Oh no they still work. They just can't afford to live in a building.
You can be sure that these jailed homeless people will end up being forced into labor - enslaved - because you can't let dirt-cheap labor go to waste, and you can't let a poor person look like they're getting something for nothing - mooching, free-riding - even if it's not their choice. Handouts are legitimately only for the rich and their corporations after all. If someone's fined+jailed and won't work for some capitalist exploiter, what will be done? I would guess some kind of torture will be employed to change their minds, but wouldn't be surprised if they're simply executed, especially if they're non-white.
You have an outlandish view of county jail in the US. None of that shit happens.
Fines will teach those people who have no money to get more money.
The federal government needs to take over homeless support. Establish federally managed shelters.
And impose property taxes on rich people to pay for it. Allow those same taxpayers to vote to.have that tax go to permanent housing for the homeless in their zip code and such a vote is also consent to override all local laws in the process and make it lawsuit immune
HUD could do a lot by just literally buying buildings or developing new projects and renting them for just enough to cover costs. Put an anchor into the real estate markets.
I'm wary about this being the solution. I mean... [Gestures wildly at the federal government] Just wait until the republicans get a supermajority again and see what they do with camps full of homeless people under federal control.
Yeah, but giving the homeless bus tickets to another state isn’t the answer either. I know that wasn’t referenced earlier- but it happens. Without federal level support, Republicans’ solution is to remove their burdens to someone else’s plate. Then they unironically point at the “failures” of Democratic states, “look at all the encampments.”
Making homelessness illegal is just another arrow in their quiver towards the same goal (target).
Clearly, we need more space tourism.
It's getting to the point that you can't sleep anywhere legally unless you're paying someone for the space you're occupying. Most of the cities near me have destroyed the woods that homeless people lived in, forcing them to move and leaving behind a weird ass looking stand of trees.
I used to work with homeless people and as much as being outside sucks, shelters can be worse. We had people in their 70s who went to shelters and slept on the floor, their heads almost touching their neighbors. They had their meds stolen and had to sleep on top of their belongings to keep them safe. A lot of people chose to sleep outside in the summer because they felt safer.
I can’t speak for Oregon, but here in California the problem is that we have a LOT of beds that are not being used. And cities and states can’t force people into shelter and care if the area doesn’t have enough beds for everyone that is unhoused.
The ask is to be able to shelter some people with the beds that are available. Right now CA is forced to wait until it could theoretically give every unhoused person a shelter bed at once.
If the shelters aren't being used then maybe ask why they aren't being used instead of trying to force people into them.
Safety, hygiene, and convenience are often reasons why many people opt for a tent over the local shelter.
So it seems like a better idea then would be highly subsidized tiny houses/apartments.
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard so I 100% believe the government would be stuck on exactly that.