[giraffe_lady]

> 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.

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.

[rmk]

> 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?

They are not residents, period. They are vagrants, or transients. I do not agree that vagrants and transients lose property rights summarily, but the idea of calling them some type of "resident" is ridiculous.

[giraffe_lady]

A person homeless in the town they grew up in and never left is vagrant or transient?

Homeless people are not for the most part rootless drifters. They have family, churches, regular AA groups, doctors, in some cases jobs even. They are part of your community and as such how you relate to and treat them and yes even describe them reflects on you.

[GenerocUsername]

You seem to have the TV news version of homeless in mind.

The homeless ruining my city and many other major and mid size cities are literally drug addicts from all over the country and even world who sort of just shuffle around from one city to the next between jail visits

[giraffe_lady]

I have in mind the homeless people I personally know.

[felurx]

Genuine curiosity: How do you know?