this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
132 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19133 readers
5075 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tetrachromacy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Make homelessness illegal, but don't worry! You can just buy a house and then you'll be home! That's why people are homeless, right? Because they just refuse to buy homes? Fuck, I wish CA would get a governor that's not transparently gunning to be president someday. Maybe we'd get actual help and not virtue signaling horseshit like this.

6.4 billion to build 4k units and services. I don't know how much is allocated to building and how much is allocated to services but even if it's 50/50(I think an insanely high ratio) that means the units cost 800k to build. Who is getting rich off this. I remember seeing one homeless project that was like a one room 400sf shack basically cost over 1 million each to build. The corruption when it comes to building contracts is insane.

[–] MSids@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I truly struggle with what is the right way to think about the homeless debate. My partner and I debated it a few weeks back after listening to an episode of The Daily on the subject. We were both undecided.

On one hand, we should be humane to those in need.

On the other hand, some peoples situations are a result of their own making, and they are content living without. Regardless of how homeless people come to be that way, they often litter the streets with piss, trash, and drugs, making an otherwise fine area feel dirty and dangerous. Will expanded homeless housing help them get back up on their feet or enable them to continue their current lifestyle?

I don't know what the right answer is.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Housing First is the correct way to reduce homelessness. The main cause of homelessness is being priced out of the housing market, because the vast majority of housing in America is entirely privatized. Plus most public housing in America is not done nor funded well, until our European counterparts.

The problem in America is the housing market is nearly entirely private, zoning laws that prevent dense housing from being built, and the lack of public funded (nice) public housing. Housing is first and foremost an investment here, not a fundamental right to shelter like it should be.

Drug addiction is a symptom of late-stage homelessness, not a cause. The cause is almost always the private housing market pricing people out of affording even rent.

Numerous studies show that housing first participants experience higher levels of housing retention and use fewer emergency and criminal justice services, which produces cost savings in emergency department use, inpatient hospitalizations, and criminal justice system use.

https://www.pdx.edu/homelessness/housing-first

This has worked famously in Finland

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

the only correct way imo is the ine that ultimately lowers the cost of homes, but people who see homing as an investment do not want that.

of course there will always be people who choose the lifestyle by choice, but there shouldnt ever be a way to punish those who are willing to work, but physically cannot afford to.

take for example Singapore who does it in a 2 headed authoritarian way. private home ownership is expensive, but legal. government housing is cheap but your lease only last a century (so you never officially own your house). they monitor whether you work or not. if you cannot maintain a job, you get deported back to your country of origin (if youre a migrant). They have security for other problems to adress jail (e. g drugs).

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Uh, seems like an obvious right answer to me.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

For many homeless, the root cause is undiagnosed and/or untreated mental illness of some sort. That then spirals out of control until they end up on the street. Since we don't give a shit about healthcare in this country, especially mental healthcare, that's an inevitable result for many until we actually begin to fix the root causes.

The same is true of many drug users. And there is a large overlap on these populations for that reason. Homelessness is hell, addiction is hell, that fix lets them escape real life for a brief period of time. Their illegal actions like theft to fund that aren't usually about wanting to do whatever it is so much as it's needing to do it for the next fix, which is essentially a physical requirement to live at that point.

But again, we don't give a shit about treatment and rehabilitation for drug dealers, throwing them in a box guaranteed to ruin any future prospects, while paying tens of thousands of dollars for prisons is apparently a better investment than attempting rehabilitation with those same funds.

When you then add that even "normal" members of society with full time jobs can't afford a place to live, you get a cycle that feeds the homeless issue with new bodies daily as people can no longer keep their heads above the water and slip down.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

That's not true, the vast majority of homelessness is caused by being priced out of the housing market.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You have a link or episode number for the podcast? I've heard this line before about some of them being homeless by choice but I don't think I buy that excuse. Sometimes the shelters are more dangerous than the streets. Instead of sleeping 2 blocks away from the crazies they're in the next bunk. And while I'm sure a few are claustrophobic I'm willing to bet a vast majority want a solid roof over their heads.

[–] MSids@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I believe this is the episode HERE

Maybe I didn't state it well, but homeless by choice is maybe slightly different than how I imagine it. I imagine it might be more like complacency like how some people never leave entry level jobs.

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago

How about housing for normal people?

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

CBS News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for CBS News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-2024-housing-bills-homekey-plus/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support