this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
415 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3195 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So instead of spending X dollars to ensure people have homes, we spend X++ dollars to evict them from their spaces?
Sure, it’s like how NYC spent $150 million to bust people evading $105,000 in subway fees. Absolutely anything to avoid legitimately helping people.
The suffering is the point. They want the threat of homelessness to keep the masses in line.
That is a stupid issue with Mayor Adams, but NYC legitimately spends millions on housing the homeless. The city has to get you shelter. It's the law.
NYC has less than 5% unsheltered in contrast to San Francisco which has 30% unsheltered homeless per night. the driving force of this is the freezing winter in New York, which presents a hazard habitating outside. New York has to choose between making sure everyone gets a warm place, or they get to pick up the dead bodies.
California has a particularly high per-capita homeless population despite efforts toward housing. A large factor is NIMBY homeownership in which HOAs are determined to preserve property values and are a strong lobbying force.
None of that makes any sense. California and NYC have similar property values. If anything, NYC price per square footage is higher on average. There are basically no houses on Manhattan, so almost all places to live have a condo board or co-op board. It's similar to an HOA.
California always had nice weather. Homeless people only existed in large numbers after Governor Reagan emptied the mental institutions and provided few resources for the residents. They literally took away their homes. Before that, NYC had more homeless people.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/03/hard-truths-about-deinstitutionalization-then-and-now/
California could house almost all of its homeless people if they spent the money. It's not even that expensive compared to the alternative.
Other states are sending their homeless to California.
Same with NYC. There's no excuse besides being cheap and lazy.
Just to clarify, when comparing New York City to San Francisco, I'm talking about the percentage of the city's homeless that aren't covered by available shelters, whether state-sponsored, churches or non-profit. I wasn't talking about whether New York City has more homeless than San Francisco (which I do not know) but that the shelters in New York cover most of the homeless, while that is not true in San Francisco.
The second paragraph is about California as a whole state. And yes, we could solve our homeless problem, but landowners actively lobby against it, and our state government is about as corrupt as any of the others.
How long has this been a law? The last time I went to NY I saw plenty of people sleeping in Penn Station.
Since 1981:
https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2021/10/how-nycs-right-shelter-mandate-works/185933/
And why would you think people wouldn't be able to sleep in a train station? It's just like an airport.
At least one person I saw was in the stairwells on the way from a waiting area down to a train platform. I don't think passengers would want to sleep in the corridor between the gate and the plane at an airport, but you're right, perhaps it is only the locked door that is holding them back.
Now I am kinda curious why they were staying there if they were supposed to be guaranteed shelter. I wouldn't be surprised if the state failed to house them despite the law and that was the warmest place they could find or if the offered accommodations were unfit or dangerous.
You are just guessing. Look into it more. They are put up in places that are pretty decent for homeless shelters. They're usually cheap hotels, so you get your own room but no kitchen. It's not somewhere you want to live, but it's 100x better than a train station.
Most homeless people are fine in them, but they have security watching the door so you can't have a party, you can't have pets, and you can't have drugs. Maybe you can't smoke. Some people don't want to live under those conditions. Other people have mental illness and don't want to be in any shelter.
Downvoted for stating an easily verifiable fact lol
Yes, facts are one thing. But what about what I believe is true? Isn't that more important?
What I believe is important but what I feel is really what matters.
It will pay for itself in 1,500 years!
How else would the mega rich be able to buy up the property and rent out the spaces for normal people to finance?
It's literally cheaper to provide the unhoused with healthcare. Not just for them, but for housed people and all taxpayers. But we (as a society) don't. At this point I feel it's literally about cruelty, and punishing them for their "life choices". And you think we'll just give them homes!?
But Sosh uh izm!
Next time you ask yourself that question, remember that these cunts are spending your tax dollars to hurt those who have nothing left to lose. Vote them out
And considering that veterans are over represented in the homeless population, they actively hurt those who have served the country instead of helping them. Shameful!