comment: >
  
  Oh, now we give a shit about hard-dollar taxing the lower class.
context: $750 fine for being homeless is hilarious. >
  
  I am sure that will stop it.
  I am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.
  Just insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name? >
  
  They don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates. >
  
  They want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.
  Maybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet. >
  
  No, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either.  It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.
  I've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley. >
  
  I think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.
  You don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle. >
  
  It's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause.  Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.
  I spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and "a living wage" isn't even a nearby second.
  I don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.
  Really though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided.  Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.
  But when people are higher than a kite saying things like "of they just need a job with a living wage" is kinda just silly >
  
  I don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. 
  Drugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. 
  I absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. 
  I would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.
  As a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time. >
  
  Housing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income) >
  
  Sounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh? >
  
  Fill our prisons laws >
  
  Laws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable. >
  
  I really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s >
  
  Just bring back debtors prison. >
  
  Gross. Somehow, not surprised. >
  
  Why didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty! >
  
  Just like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s >
  
  When you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the "homelessness problem", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.
  Many people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless. >
  
  Typical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:
  Liberal: "the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people."
  Me: "yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-"
  Liberal: "ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night."
  Me: ".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you." >
  
  Honest question, do you own a home yourself? >
  
  I'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me. >
  
  Dude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111 >
  
  I own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters! >
  
  "We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it."
  "We must stop abortion by outlawing it."
  "You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!" >
  
  Disgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime? >
  
  
  How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?
  
  What's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had "no place to lay his head" and traveled around mooching off of his followers. >
  
  Matthews 25:41-45 >
  
  The pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack. >
  
  How is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!
  /s >
  
  Something tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol >
  
  For a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit. >
  
  Dems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing. >
  
  Ok but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats. >
  
  Gavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.
  And really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this. >
  
  Ok I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead. >
  
  Why does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US? >
  
  In the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters >
  
  Capitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US. >
  
  They make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money. >
  
  Shelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day. >
  
  Spoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this >
  
  Crimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control. >
  
  LMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.
  Lots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up. >
  
  They'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that "service".  All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless.    It's dystopian. >
  
  Have to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow >
  
  The choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? 
  It's so odd to me that we live in a "free country" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else. >
  
  Imagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them. >
  
  Oh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Cities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.
  Protesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.
  Y Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5 >
  
  ‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. 
  Just because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it. >
  
  It’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something. >
  
  Just making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it. >
  
  When their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.
  Locking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans. >
  
  If there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are. >
  
  So damned wrong!!!! >
  
  This is a cash grab to fill private prisons. >
  
  Im not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. 
  More notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. 
  We get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too. >
  
  If you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack. >
  
  Are you volunteering your backyard for their housing? 
  Because no one else is. >
  
  I mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off. >
  
  Yes thank you!
  That is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. 
  Im so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out. >
  
  People don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier. >
  
  We should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.
  That way, I would magically have a million dollars. >
  
  Isn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol >
  
  Mississippi >
  
  It's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.
  Our government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful. >
  
  When you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.
  This isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done. >
  
  It seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people.  Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is.  We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances.  People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people.  Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them.  It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people.  If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it. >
  
  Yeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here >
  
  There are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts. 
  Making it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs. >
  
  No it doesn’t. Making life harder to live means people do whatever it takes to make it easier. Including especially the drugs you folks love to pretend is a problem for homeless people but not for you. >
  
  So much for "the land of the free" >
  
  This is sick. Fuck this place man. >
  
  Just like Jesus would want right? >
  
  Homelessness has crushed downtown Portland. The main tourist sector is quite literally filled with human shit, tents and violent crime. The police department was defunded and remade and the result is antipathy.
  Edit: Here is the link. Funds were removed from the budget and it is now branded as the Portland Police Bureau. >
  
  Can you please explain how charging these people with a $750 fine would put an end to this?  Would they just all be moved to prison since they can't pay? >
  
  I never said it wasnt a problem.  I was in Portland last Spring and I see that it's a problem there.  I'm asking how a fine would alleviate the solution or at least asking for an alternative. >
  
  Pretty sure we need anti-homelessness laws, not anti-homeless. >
  
  People would rather pay for hostile architectural designs like benches that are uncomfortable to sit on or prevent anyone from lying down, adding spikes in front of businesses than help anyone. 
  It's always 'Let's see if making them suffer more works first before we consider other solutions.' >
  
  
  Under the New York mayor, Eric Adams, who is entering the second year of his four-year tenure, city officials outlawed houseless people from sleeping on the city’s subway system or riding the trains all night.
  
  Seems reasonable >
  
  New York has more vacant apartments than homeless people. Nothing about this is reasonable. >
  
  That's not relevant. Most of these people are not capable of having their own apartment (to be clear, I'm talking about the homeless that are living on the streets/subways, not the people who lost their jobs and are crashing on a friends couch or whatever. People often conflate the two populations) >
  
  Both groups are homeless. >
  
  Yes, but the issues they face and therefore the solutions that would be effective are vastly different >
  
  Not necessarily. You can have a raging case of addiction and still have a job, an place to live, and let your addict buddies crash at your place. There's quite a number of high functioning addicts.
  When we make judgements on who is addicted, there's always leniency granted for the ones who have money to burn, even if they're a liability to the workplace and their families. >
  
  Everything you said is a complete non-sequiter. Nobody is denying that high-functioning addicts exist, but we are not talking about them. The issue is that with the street/subway homeless, the vast majority have serious addiction and other mental illnesses which need to be treated, so simply giving them apartments wouldn't work. >
  
  Stigma is very much a part of the issue. >
  
  this is fascism. >
  
  This is much worse than fining people for their opinions, which far-righters oppose with a passion, of course. >
  
  What are you on about? >
  
  Homelessness is a multifaceted issue. Mental health, addiction, financial, et cetera. If we beef up social services that could mean more taxation on the middle class. >
  
  As opposed to using that same money to give massive tax breaks to the wealthy. We already spend many times more appeasing the rich than it would cost to help the poor. >
  
  I think it's good and normal that our states have the same approach to homelessness that emperor Bokassa had ^/s "oh you're homeless, well that's illegal"