Unified in hating the poor.
It is why the belief that we can vote meaningful change to our system is so naive and dangerous. Before our politicians are anything, they are members of the upper class. Their one true goal will always be keeping those beneath them in their place.
Anti human behavior.
Bloods and crips always working together to screw the people!
Alliance? Please. They’ve been creating this crisis with their actions/inaction and now it’s the homeless peoples’ faults? Where are they gonna f*ckin go??
There is nothing rare about this.
Democrats and Republicans have always, and will always, have bipartisanship for things that suck:
Low Minimum Wage
Welfare for Israel
Permanent War (and now endless funds for other country’s wars too)
No Health Care
Overfunding War
Overfunding and Militarizing Cops
Legal grifts (like how it’s legal for them to loan their campaigns money and charge 20% interest)
Underfunded Education
Underfunded Food Aid
Legal Insider Trading for Lawmakers
Legislators ‘Working’ Four Months a Year
Automatic Raises for Themselves
Almost half of your list is things dems try to address but get blocked because they don’t have a senate supermajority. Dems are bad enough with the truth, you don’t need to lie about them
Yeah I agree, Some of those points also have some more nuance. I think we can all be against endless war but recognize what is happening in Ukraine as something else. It depends on if you think it is ok for the USA to use geopolitics of Russia’s blunders in Ukraine as a way to wage a modern day cold war against an old foe. I think most in the West would prefer Ukraine to be free and independent, rather than Russia win.
The one thing that unites the oligarchs, abusing the poors
In case you're in a hurry here's the jist of the linked article
Leaders from across the political spectrum in many Western states have asked the Supreme Court to overturn rulings that restrict clearing homeless encampments. Officials described growing problems with tent cities in places like California, Montana, and Oregon. They argue that court decisions have limited their ability to remove people from public areas without adequate housing options. While advocates agree encampments are unsafe, they argue governments should focus on housing and assistance over crackdowns. Homelessness has overwhelmed many areas, with over 170,000 homeless people in California alone. The filing stems from a case around citations in Grants Pass, Oregon. Even after billions of spending, cities struggle with lack of shelter space and people refusing help. Interestingly, both liberal and conservative jurisdictions have joined together in calling for the Supreme Court to intervene, a rarity in polarized times.
Officials hope the Court will address what they see as a growing humanitarian crisis.
This comment was generated by a bot. Send comments and complaints via private message.
Good bot!
Similar article on subject:
West Coast cities start to confront the limits of the liberal dream
I don’t agree that the strategy of increasing the housing supply is a bad strategy. Indeed, it’s the only way to solve this issue long-term. But it does take time and money which raises the question of what to do with thousands of people in the meantime.
Use eminent domain for something useful for once and reallocate existing unused housing?
I don’t think there is enough unused housing in some of these cities. Also, some fraction of these people are mentally ill and would severely damage or destroy whatever housing they find themselves in. We saw this with some of the hotel shelter programs during the pandemic.
I share the same sentiment and while I don’t disagree, did you see this part?
Portland built more shelter and made 3,399 offers to go into it, but people turned them down 2,560 of those times
I’ve seen this in a few places now. What are your thoughts on that?
I see that cited, and wonder where that number comes from. The document they cite is from Grants Pass, and just also says that number without saying where they got it other than “Portland Officials.” I’m not necessarily saying it is untrue, but it seems dubious at best. Even if it were true, were there stipulations to that housing (no partners, no pets, no drugs, etc)? If so, the high number may be related. Housing first (which should include other social support structures) is shown to work; housing with conditions is marginal at best.
Good point. I’ll have to look into that aspect more sometime.
As far as housing with stipulations: totally agree. You’re asking too much of someone all at once.
One problem may be the extreme restriction of autonomy that sometimes accompanies public housing. You see this tendency to treat adults receiving any sort of aid as if they were children.
It also tends to be the case with VA housing. The way they treat veterans living in VA condos is absurd. It’s on par with what you’d expect to see in like a halfway home, except these folks usually haven’t done anything illegal. They signed their lives away, came home with PTSD, and get treated like trash by the VA for their troubles.
The strings that go with public housing often make the idea of looking for another way to get a leg up more appealing.
It certainly raises questions but I think there’s a lot of missing information there. Who are they asking? Every unhoused person or just the most disruptive groups that they most want to move? And why are people refusing? Is the offered shelter substandard in some way? You could write a whole article about just that statistic.
But if they have shelter available the courts do allow them to ban camping in public spaces which is needed in my view. Public space is very limited in America and there are real costs to that space being monopolized by a small group of people. If they truly have nowhere else to be then fair enough but as soon as alternatives exist then they should be there instead and not on sidewalks and public parks.
deleted by creator
