this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1280 points (98.0% liked)

Solarpunk Urbanism

1790 readers
31 users here now

A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.

Checkout these related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 174 points 3 months ago (51 children)

There's a number of other studies that show that, overall, letting people go unhoused is far, far more costly than just fucking housing them. It's not just paying for the cops and demo teams to chase them around, you're also paying for excess use of medical services that wouldn't be taking place otherwise, lost revenue because of people wanting to avoid the homeless, and a bunch of other things that all just pile up. It doesn't help that some startups have entered this space and you've got cities like San Francisco paying them something like 40 or 80 thousand a year to keep the homeless in a fenced off area in a tent grid. It doesn't really fix anything, it's just another shitty, expensive band-aid whose funding could have gone to fixing the problem but didn't.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 57 points 3 months ago (36 children)

Yes. They should do it like NYC, where it's basically illegal to live on the street. The city is required by law to offer free housing at a certain quality level for anyone who needs it. It's not amazing but you get a door that locks and a security team, plus a bathroom.

If you don't want to sleep inside, you literally have to leave the city. It's not cheap but it works much better than letting people live in tents.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (35 children)

Why the illegal part, though? People don’t really need an incentive to have shelter. It just punishes people who are struggling with even deeper issues.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 31 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Technically it's not illegal to sleep on the street, but there are sanitation rules regarding it. NYC has 8 million people. Any problem you can think of is magnified. It's literally a sanitary issue if you allow thousands of people to camp outside.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/nyregion/nyc-homeless-camp-bill-of-rights.html

In New York City, there are many rules on the books that have been used to restrict sleeping rough.

One is a piece of sanitation code that makes it unlawful to leave “any box, barrel, bale or merchandise or other movable property” or to erect “any shed, building or other obstruction” on “any public place.”

In city parks, it is illegal to “engage in camping, or erect or maintain a tent, shelter or camp” without a permit, or to be in a park at all between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. unless posted rules state otherwise.

And on the property of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, both underground and in outdoor elevated subway stations, it is a form of banned disorderly conduct to “sleep or doze” in any manner that “may interfere” with the comfort of passengers. Nor may subway riders “lie down or place feet on the seat of a train, bus or platform bench or occupy more than one seat” or “place bags or personal items on seats” in ways that “impede the comfort of other passengers.”

Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don't get in the way.

someone who did not violate any of those rules — say, someone who set a sleeping bag in an out-of-the-way spot under a highway overpass and did not put up any kind of shelter — was legally in the clear, at least in theory.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don’t get in the way.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This doesn't apply because the law doesn't forbid anyone from sleeping under bridges. Also, you can get housing for free. That's my point. It's the opposite of that quote. Unless you're pro-theft or something.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I am not sure what the housing situation is actually like for homeless in NYC because I've never spoken to anyone there who experienced it. I don't take your word for it that it's good or ethical.

I am not protheft. I'm not wealthy like that. https://www.edelson-law.com/blog/2022/10/wage-theft-outpaces-all-other-theft-in-america/

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are a ton of articles on it. The system is huge and has been around for decades. Look it up if you like. If you don't care, don't.

No one said it was good at all. It's a necessary service in a big city. Obviously some shelters are very different from others. None of them are at nice hotels, but you can get your own room and a place for some of your stuff.

The major complaints are usually "it's too small" or "they don't let me have pets". Guess what? There are actual apartments people pay for that are too small and don't allow pets. It's NYC.

I'm talking about reality in this century. You're quoting an 1800s writer from another country. The system is a complicated solution to a complicated problem. So there's not going to be any simple answer, and definitely not from online quotes.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

If you lack a sense of humor and can't see how close your quote was to his, that's fine. It was funny to me and maybe others. That you haven't learned something people were joking about hundreds of years ago is kinda on you.

The effects of violating these fair and just laws - do they impact the homeless and the housed the same? Do the laws, say, give fines based on income? Or do they give preferential treatment to people with better, often more expensive lawyers?

But no, your statement wasn't silly at all. The law is totally fair to the poor and wealthy alike.

I would have to talk to a homeless person who was homeless recently in NYC and used these programs to assess them.

Where should they leave their pets, ESAs, and service dogs when they stay in the shelter? Do you think roaming packs of dogs at night would be good?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's a glowed up version of "The law binds both rich and poor equally". A transparently untrue statement that's meant to draw attention to laws that are a mere inconvenience for the rich but seriously hurt the poor.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Obviously they restrict people who have homes but that isn’t really relevant here, is it? Those people have choices, they get to choose to stay late in a park and the alternative for them is go home.

It’s not even close to the same thing.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They didn't say it was the same thing, they just mentioned that it's not just to target the homeless.

As you said in another comment, things are often more complex than one thing or another.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago

Exactly. These are necessary rules for a large city. No one can camp without a permit because then parks would be unusable. The same permit is for weddings, parties, whatever. It's pretty easy to get one for a few hours, but they will reject it if you ask to use the park every day and night.

People living outside in public parks and on streets is a really bad use of urban space. It takes public space and makes it private. That's why the city gives out free room in old hotels and shelters. It's a good thing people can't sleep wherever.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

That's not to mention that it gets very cold in NYC in the winter, unlike San Francisco. If you're stuck outside in the winter in NYC, you will die.

load more comments (31 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
load more comments (45 replies)