this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023

50 points (86.8% liked)

politics

19891 readers

5266 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

In Rare Alliance, Democrats and Republicans Seek Legal Power to Clear Homeless Camps (web.archive.org)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/politics

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] lostinasea 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This line was pretty interesting to me: "the Portland brief reported that about 75 percent of some 3,400 offers of shelter were turned down". I'm wondering if there are any prevailing reasons as to why. If people have good reasons to not go then maybe some money is better spent solving that instead of simply pushing people from one sidewalk to another

[–] jordanlund 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Portlander here:

What it boils down to are most of the shelters have restrictions, like "no drugs or alcohol" and the homeless who refuse shelter either can't or won't abide by those restrictions.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, aren't the shelters notoriously unsafe, even moreso than living on the street? I know they are in New York, don't know if it's also the case in Portland..

[–] jordanlund 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The claim is they are less safe, but it's hard to imagine being less safe than homeless in a place where you can't put your back to a wall.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

It might be hard to imagine if you don't know much about it, but situations like this is sadly not uncommon in New York shelters:

Our review of nearly 3,000 pages of internal records of dangerous and criminal activity inside 30th Street in 2017 and 2018 found:

Serious incidents — such as assaults, death threats and possession of significant quantities of drugs — won’t necessarily get someone arrested or even kicked out.

Violations of shelter rules often go without punishment.

Repeat offenders have no trouble bedding down for the night in a shelter, even after multiple incidents in various city-run facilities. That was the case with the man accused of the Chinatown killings.

source

You may note that it's an old article, but things have gotten much worse since then, in large part because the current mayor is a fascist cop, but I repeat myself.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe it has to do with drug use. Even weed isn't tolerated at these facilities. There's not really a fix for that other than housing. A bunch of people doing drugs in a dense population like that wouldn't be good. Doing drugs in your own home like a normal person would be fine. But not even the libs want to house these people.

[–] fubo 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not just drug use. Shelters don't let you keep your stuff there during the day. They don't let you keep your dog who's been with you on the street. They don't let you stay with your buddy or partner. They don't even assure you a bed two nights in a row. So going into one can immediately lose you a lot, in exchange for only one night's dubious protection.

I'm the libs. I say build bathrooms. Find ways to legalize camps and make them safer and more sanitary. Nobody's ever gonna lift themselves out of poverty if the government comes along every few weeks and takes all their personal property away.

[–] FlyingSquid 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think you will like to hear this- we live in a small city, Terre Haute, Indiana. However, we still have a significant homeless problem.

That's not the good part. Here is the good part- my wife is an administrator here at the public library system. They are currently building a new library branch. It will include a signup required, one person at a time shower and washer/dryer free for anyone who wants to use them. Obviously the hope is that the local homeless will take advantage of the situation, but anyone can.

I hope more libraries follow suit. You can't lift someone out of poverty if they have dirty clothes and haven't showered in a month either.

Now here's the question: If our town can do it, why can't Portland?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

It would be nice if they can put that much effort into helping them instead of pushing them out.

[–] Ensign_Crab 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rare, right.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, Republican and liberal establishment people have always been allies against the humane treatment of the unhoused.

Just like they always agree that common sense justice reform that actually changes the broken system would be catastrophic and should be avoided at all costs 🤦

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

In Rare Alliance

Should read, "On Behalf of The Big Club"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There was a recent court ruling that prevented SF from being able to practically touch any sidewalk encampment: https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-oakland-9685f0a4350f8eb45602417ad334006f

The story of Newsom going to the Supreme Court is because they need to bypass that ruling if they want to be able to move people out who are refusing offers of shelter.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

if they want to be able to move people out who are refusing offers of shelter.

Which, to be clear, they absolutely shouldn't. The shelter system has failed and further victimization of the unhoused will only hurt people without addressing any of the root causes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Bell Riots still right on schedule

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)