I'm not aware of the local news outlets or leanings, but my visits over the last few years are pretty consistent with what I've read in this article. It's an undeniable problem and the current response is clearly not working.

I'm quite curious, what did you find far-right about this article? I thought it was quite centrist, moderate, gentle.

Far-right isn't a synonym for bad, aggressive, abrasive (although in practice many people would argue that the two are linked, and that could explain why some people tend to recoil from the term even though they hold similar positions, such as all the people beginning their sentence with I'm pretty left-wing, but... but I digress). Just because a text is moderate and gentle in tone doesn't mean it's not heavily slanted one way or another in content. In this case it's very easy to see the right-wing slant through the cracks of the 'gentle' tone.

How is talking about an obvious problem a far-right brain virus?

It’s not. Just a straw man argument avoiding the deeper truths which the article is exposing and the commenter is disinclined to admit.

The brain-worms comes in at the otherizing rhetoric. They're "homeless", not people without homes; they're besieging us, making us hostages.

I love this quote: > The city enables the entire homeless lifestyle, not just drug use. Free food is everywhere.

It's clear the author is happy with their hierarchical position and thinks that those below them ought to die in the streets.