| The article talks about (well, at least, opens with) instances where Courts have ordered that belongings be restored, but where cities have failed to do so. One example is that of a woman losing her husband's ashes. I think it is callous to comment about how homeless people happen to be in possession of their belongings without at least reading the article. It is a fair comment, however, to ask if examples are cherrypicked to tug at the readers' heart strings, with an agenda in mind. I do think this article uses numerous tricks to promote this agenda. - Referring to residents as "housed residents", as if homeless people should be considered "residents" in neighborhoods they have no business being in, in the first place. - Saying that people are _usually_ forced to move without any connections to housing or support, but then following up with the qualification "sometimes" in the next sentence. - Citing an example of a lady whose daughter's picture was taken away, as well as her tent, during a cold winter, while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst (people such as you). What about _their_ humanity? |
Well, why not? Are they residents of anywhere? If not, do you see how easily that slides into not needing to provide services for them? Not considering them deserving of anything, in fact?
> while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst
We mostly get this, in most articles and conversations on this subject. Read nearly any article about it and count quotes by homeless people vs anyone else. Try it in this comment section.
>And anyway what about their humanity?
When I see a homeless person I think god what has been done to them. Not look what they are doing to me.