[ZenoArrow]

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I'll hopefully never fully understand what it feels like to have someone you're close to being threatened with a knife, but I can imagine it's horrible, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

What I am saying is that in order to cut down on that behaviour, we need to stop the problem at the source. To my knowledge, no country has ever managed to fully eradicate homelessness, but other places have had success in reducing drug addiction and mental health issues. If those issues are tackled, the issues surrounding homelessness should be greatly reduced, including a large reduction in violent and/or erratic behaviour.

Trust is hard to build once it's broken, and I'm not asking you to forgive anyone, but we have to look beyond our current hardships if we want a future that's worth looking forward to.

[scarmig]

Everything there is factually true. But I hate the idea that we aren't allowed to do anything to improve quality of life of the non-homeless before homelessness as an issue is solved.

Another example: literally every single night, a homeless person sets up a tent with a bunch of trash in my building's fire escape. If there were a fire and we had to use it, it'd pretty much be inaccessible.

It's possible to call the city, but they don't fix it overnight, which is kind of the point. And installing a gate in the fire escape alcove is illegal, because the gate would apparently encroach onto public property.

So what's to be done? Should I just accept that I should just literally die in a fire, for the sake of a homeless person having a place to sleep? And of course it's easy to say, "well in an ideal world there'd be a bed for them!" Unfortunately the world we live in isn't ideal, but anytime anyone complains about quality of life issues, "homeless advocates" will demand that you solve a century old national problem before granting you have even the slightest right to complain.

[istjohn]

You make it sound like solving homelessness would require a Manhattan Project-like effort. It's not a trivial problem, but the solution is within easy reach of our society if we had the will.

What should be done? Give the poor guy a freaking bed with a roof over his head! Why don't you just say we need to take care of that guy so he doesn't have to sleep on your fire escape?

You make it sound like you think that would be asking too much of society. Like it's obvious that would be too much. That guy's going to sleep outside, so the least society can do is make sure he's not doing it somewhere that you don't have to worry about tripping over in case of a fire.

No! There is no good reason anyone should have to sleep outside in this country. And as long as people do have to sleep outside, those of us who sleep comfortably in our homes should respond to their presence not with disgust but with action.

[closeparen]

Do I have your position correctly, that scarmig is morally obligated to die in fire unless they can pay the rent on an apartment for this person?

What happens when a second person starts sleeping there? How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?

What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic.

>Why don't you just say we need to take care of that guy so he doesn't have to sleep on your fire escape?

Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore.

>the solution is within easy reach of our society if we had the will.

I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump. The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die. Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No.

> not with disgust but with action.

There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Do I have your position correctly, that scarmig is morally obligated to die in fire unless they can pay the rent on an apartment for this person?"

That's not what was said.

> "How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?"

Zero.

> "What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic."

Again, you're missing the point. The idea is to tackle the issues collectively.

> "Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore."

The money already exists within the government to solve it. It's just a matter of priorities.

> "I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump."

Bollocks. You do realise that there were poor people who voted for Trump? What message do you think they were trying to send?

> "The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die."

Are you an American?

> "Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No."

Again, you're twisting words, that's not even close to what was said.

> "There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades."

What do you propose is done?

[closeparen]

>The idea is to tackle the issues collectively.

Indeed, this is the notion behind liberal politics, which have been soundly rejected by the public.

>It's just a matter of priorities.

The public couldn't be clearer that meeting basic needs for people who are unable to earn a living isn't a priority.

>What message do you think they were trying to send?

"Fuck the even poorer people who are changing my culture and taking my jobs."

>Are you an American?

Um, yes, the context of this thread is the San Francisco public library.

>What do you propose is done?

Make city life as attractive and cheap as possible to bring back the tax base from the suburbs; use the money to fund public housing and mental health services.

Continuing to degrade city life only drives away the resources that could be tapped for real solutions.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Everything there is factually true. But I hate the idea that we aren't allowed to do anything to improve quality of life of the non-homeless before homelessness as an issue is solved."

There are plenty of quality of life government programs for the non-homeless, and ignoring the issues of the homeless ('out of sight, out of mind') is not going to solve the problems, it's only going to make things worse. I'm sorry that the situation had to get as bad as it has for people to take notice, but now that recognition that something has to be done is there, I'd ask you to be pragmatic, look beyond the current issues and think of the practical steps necessary to stop the growth of the homeless.

> "Should I just accept that I should just literally die in a fire, for the sake of a homeless person having a place to sleep?"

No, you shouldn't accept that, you should take action to ensure it doesn't continue to be a problem. However, whatever action you choose to take, choose wisely. Is a person who can't even get a good night's sleep likely to be even more of a pain in the ass? I'd suggest you already know the answer.

> "anytime anyone complains about quality of life issues, "homeless advocates" will demand that you solve a century old national problem before granting you have even the slightest right to complain."

I'm not suggesting you have to solve 'a century old national problem' on your own. The reason I feel happy to recommend a push for single payer is that there's already growing momentum for single payer. Plus, it won't just help the homeless, it'll help everybody. There's really no reason not to join in the push for single payer (other than apathy, which clearly you don't have).

[knodi123]

> What I am saying is that in order to cut down on that behaviour, we need to stop the problem at the source

Why not do both? Stop using libraries as de-facto daytime homeless shelters, AND attack the problem at the source? I am STRONGLY in favor of dealing with some of the root causes of homelessness, even if it increases my taxes. Non-paradoxically, I ALSO don't want to have to inspect the library bathrooms for loose needles or scary schizophrenics before letting my kid go in by themselves.