I was, for 4 weeks, and my local libraries wifi is what helped me stay in touch with my parents when my phone data was shut off for nonpayment. It helped me secure a job back at home.
You need to rethink your idea of what homelessness is. It's not antisocial drug users. It's also LGBT kids thrown out of their home. It's families being evicted because the parents lost their job. Even if they were antisocial drug users, sympathy, support, and assistance do more help than turning a blind eye and hoping they go away.
Is there real political backlash against the transient homeless population?
The problem is the library wants to kick out an inconvenient, occasionally dangerous, group of the chronically homeless. A group that reduces utility of that public good to everyone else. They don’t have the tools to do so directly. So they use a broad-brush approach.
After today seeing 4 (customer-less) kiosks scattered across my medium-sized AZ town attempting to give away free cell phones, free tablets, and free cell service (presumably to those who qualify on the basis of need, presumably funded by the Federal Government), and then returning home and reading this thread in which it is frequently claimed that open WiFi is providing more or less the last comm link between homeless people (who evidently have phones but not cell service?) and the wider world and the possibilities it might offer, I find myself wondering "[why] don't the homeless qualify for these free [cell phones and] cell services?" Is this simply an oversight by Federal legislators (i.e. requiring a recipient to have a fixed mailing address (or: documentable proof of poverty?)) If so, why is nobody mentioning a need to agitate to remove the legal requirements preventing those most needing this help to be eligible to receive it? Simply providing free (voice & data providing) SIMs (which the Federal Govt already seems to be willing to provide) to homeless persons should obviate this entire sub-issue? Or would this (essentially handing out SIM's to anyone who asks for one) risk destabilizing the entire for-pay cell-service industry sector?
In this case that service is being deliberately sabotaged for one of the most vulnerable groups in society.
Internet access is so necessary in modern life that it should be considered a citizen or human right.
Even if you subscribe to the ideology of the homeless being lazy leeches, the counter-effectiveness is quite obvious. Homeless people could be using the WiFi to access online banking, job, and housing applications. Things that would help get them off the street.
They are paid for by taxpayers. If the people funding the projects are unable to use them or they are being abused, then it makes sense to ensure that those that pay for the service are able to use them.
Correct, it's a service for everyone - including the homeless. A world where library doors are closed to some people is a world that has lost its way.
Do homeless people have the same rights as everyone else? Granted, they may not readily afford lawyers, but some of the restrictions you're implying trample in the freedom of movement.
In your hypothetical example, if you were inebriated, aggressive, and unhygienic, I'd strongly support you being removed from the subway circuit, because you'd similarly be denying access to it to others.
It just feels somewhat inhumane to take something away which is a marginal cost and at best and doesn't cause harm.
I mean, Libraries themselves do not need to exist, they are a service, they don't earn money, under pure capitalism they can't exist. But we know as a society that it improves social mobility and education.
and I mean, you can't do a lot these days without access to internet.
Don't get me wrong. I think we should make massive investments in trying to solve the homeless problem, but giving away our public commons is utter stupidity.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France
The cleverness of Anatole France's famous quote is that he framed it in a way that the answers to those questions were automatically obvious, by emphasizing the massive difference in agency and scope of action between the haves and the have nots.
I grew up in a very bad place in the UK and I knew many homeless people (different than homeless people in the US for sure, much lower propensity for mental health issues for example) but they avoided shelters because many homeless shelters aren’t safe. Any possessions you have will be stolen while you sleep. Women are molested and raped. Lice are all over. There are limited beds so giving up your "sure-fire" place in an underpass for a potential bed is not ideal.
You have to leave at 7 am and can’t return until 5pm at the earliest, and they’re first come first serve. Some shelters make you attend religious services.
Some shelters will "encourage" you to pay a fee to go to them.
It's very easy to become homeless and very difficult to get out of it (I mean, who has the finances to have 2 months rent, a deposit and enough to cover a failed background check), so it's not good to tar all homeless people with the "drug-use" brush.
I think you mean give them away exclusively to one group. The point of public services is to give them away.
Because one group denies it to others. In New York, the potent image is that of a homeless person obviously going through a mental health issue, who hasn’t bathed in what smells like weeks, sitting in a subway car on their own. (When I was younger and naïve, I went into one such car and tried to talk to them. I had a handful of what I’ll pretend was a smelly sauce tossed my way.)
Genuinely curious: how is the mental-health and drug addiction nexus dealt with when one has an unwilling participant?
I don't know–I'm asking what "other developed countries" do.
The problem with the status quo is it’s going to prompt a backlash which results in losing libraries.
These attractor cities then experience undue burden of having to fight basically an entire country's homeless problem using only municipal (rather than state or federal) tax dollars; where every social welfare program they add, creates "induced demand" by making them into more of an attractor city for surrounding homeless populations.
The homed people living in these attractor cities, experience a reality where they can choose to vote in progressive parties that throw however-much money at the problem of homelessness — adding public housing, shelters, food programs, jobs programs, etc. — with the only result being ever more homeless people showing up in the city. Which causes these homed people in these attractor cities to get burned out on the idea of solving homelessness.
(An aphorism: "the river sees more water than the lakebed.")
AFAICT, the only way out of the problem, is to
1. set aside federal funding for solving homelessness (which could be done easily enough in the US if anyone without a permanent residence in a particular state, were interpreted by federal law as not being "of" any state, but still a US national, and therefore a person the federal government has a duty to take care of directly — basically the same as how the federal government does insurance, postal delivery, etc. for actively-serving members of the military); and then
2. use that funding to start offering social-welfare programs for homeless people in places that don't already have large homeless populations, with the aim of creating more, smaller attractors, dispersing the homeless population, so that it's not all having to be dealt with by just the one or two natural attractor cities per country.
Yes, both of these things are big political lifts. I see it as something like the federal highway system, or for that matter, like military bases: cases where it's in all our best interests to relinquish local NIMBYesque control, in favor of top-down eminent-domain use of land for serving the needs of the country as a whole.
This is why most countries' border services will ask short-term visitors the address of the place they'll be staying while they're there: no country, no matter how open its borders, wants you to visit with the goal of becoming a beggar on their streets.
(And this is also a large part of why particular passports only let you visit particular places without a visa. The EU has internally-open borders for EU citizens, because they have mostly equalized levels of social-welfare "pressure" between countries. But no EU country will let you in from a non-EU developing country that has high levels of homelessness, if you can't prove income; and that's something the EU enforces on its member states, so that no country becomes the de-facto homeless ingress point for the whole of the EU.)
Because of these measures, each country (or open-bordered region of equal-welfare countries) is mostly just dealing with its own homeless problem, not with other countries'/regions' homeless problems.
X% of the population will always need some gov't help and Y% will need gov't help at some point. I think we need to stop negatively viewing these groups as sponges on society. Ability is a spectrum, and we don't criticize someone w Down's Syndrome, and so I don't think we should be so harsh on people who are homeless / have trouble holding down a job / low-ish IQ / and even those who fried their brain w drugs / etc.
Yes, we want to avoid perverse incentives and incentivize people to be productive members of society, but we also need to recognize that some people will always need some help, and as a society, I think we should help them, striving for a future with little to no involuntary poverty.
It's very hard to a voter base who feel financially squeezed that their taxes should be going to people who, usually, are not holding down a job. They're "doing everything right" and feel the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul as it were.
There are a lot of sophisticated answers we can give as to why the above line of reasoning is wrong (multiple analyses show that, basically, if you're unwilling to literally murder people for being homeless it's cheaper to help them) but it's a hard sell.
But we spend 100s of millions a year on one public high schools sports budget.
The government is the party that should be responsible, and I'm tired of the onus of the responsibility being put on the citizens. Why else do we PAY taxes for if not for these social services?
Where is this?
I think I’m okay with my tax dollars being spent on the following:
1. Social services for the homeless.
2. Police suppression of the homeless.
3. Hygiene discrimination on public infrastructure (with showering and laundry covered in point 1).
4. Much more aggressive fare enforcement. I mean if you have to install kouban in all the BART & Muni stations and train cameras on the gates, that isn’t the worst place to do it.
I don’t want to be heartless, but not all homeless people are the same either. Give them the help they are willing to receive and for the rest that aren’t willing, that commit crime or show up on the bus covered in their own shit, I am A-OK with the police you know, policing. If you have a creative solution that will actually help more people? Great! We’ll try it out and see if it does or doesn’t help in the way that we want, but as an also, not instead of policing.
The issue most people have is the degree to which it's happening.
Very few people literally want homeless people to just die.
But some people might not want to spend 10% of their taxes on the homeless when it doesn't appear to be improving the situation, and does - to some people - appear to be making the situation somehow worse.
Some of the people in that group might be glad to spend 10% of their taxes on the homeless, if it actually worked. In fact, I'd wager many would be willing to spend much more if it would actually work.
But it appears to be a problem that can't be fixed by throwing money on it.
The quote came to mind while I listened to a Radiolab episode on police surveillance [1]. We usually take it to mean opposing tyranny, even when convenient. But that might be too simple.
For every Patrick Henry there are dozens who prefer not to die. If we let the security situation devolve out of sympathy, or inequality increase in pursuit of efficiency, those people will snap and prompt a brutal backlash.
I’m not suggesting we re-criminalise homelessness. But the status quo, with the permanent homeless population, isn’t working. I don’t know how much one quashes one’s sympathy for the less fortunate and sense for technological progress to achieve these ends, but it’s becoming clear we have to explore toward that boundary. Open-air hard drug use, theft of non-essential goods, aggression and refusal to receive psychiatric screening (note: not treatment); these seem like low-hanging fruit to target zero of. Hell, make it part of a grand bargain to improve the transient homeless population’s wellbeing.
We have the fifth highest prison population per capita (behind El Salvador, Rwanda, Turkmenistan and Cuba), and you want to consider adding potentially another 600,000 (40% more) people to that population?
That would put us at the highest prison population in the world, and it would be not even close. That would be twenty per cent higher than some of the world's most despotic, dysfunctional countries.
And the same people who are not willing to fund socioeconomic initiatives, not willing to fund access to mental healthcare, are also not willing to fund improvements to American prisons which, while not the worst in the world, are certainly not even close to the pack when it comes to humane conditions, improving situation and circumstance, and reducing recidivism.
How would such a person get to leave prison if they were there because they were homeless? They leave prison and they're still homeless (see: already vastly overwhelmed transitional support structures, and a huge influx of additional demand and suffocatingly small desire to improve that situation).
Sorry and thank you. I'll be more blunt: we should not criminalize homelessness, putting these people in jail for being poor or mentally ill or addicted beyond agency is inhumane, and maybe if we deal with this problem we'll be less afraid of dumping the millions of Americans wrongly jailed and withheld from career development by the state back into the world.
Governments have functions and services beyond homeless services they are obligated to provide. Saying that no public services will be provided until homelessness is solved is not a sustainable approach.
Homelessness is a complex subject but the impact of homeless people is not spread evenly. The people that live in that neighborhood (I used to be one) don't want it concentrated there. A few homeless people might be tolerable; a major camp is not, and free wifi at night acts as a magnet. I don't blame them at all for shutting it off.
Put people into a hopeless unemployable situation and don't allow them a way out and meanwhile complain that no one wants to work.
We could fix the one of the biggest economic issues right now by enacting a program to get people back on their feet but apparently the real solution is for them to die.
1. Employed but unable to afford the COL of the area.
2. Too mentally unwell to hold down a job, possibly due to a history of hard drug addiction.
I agree that some homeless people can be meaningfully helped through drug addiction treatment and/or employment programs, but it won't solve the whole problem.
How many people would look the other way if we were talking putting homeless into death camps and mass murdering them, that I have no idea about.
The progressive attitude of "any opposition to a left wing idea is a right wing talking point" is so problematic towards finding *effective* progressive solutions. We NEED to critique our ideas and programs. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And SF is on that road if we don't figure out something more effective.
SF spends more per homeless individual than most other US cities. It's not a matter of "we could solve this if there wasn't as much opposition to spending taxpayer money". Whatever we are doing now isn't working, and it's not some right wing talking point to acknowledge that. SF has wasted billions on bandaids to our housing crisis, it's time we find solutions that actually work on getting homeless people housed with access to the care they need.
Yes, you can read that quip both ways.
Look at all the different things it covers:
1. Chronic homelessness: This refers to individuals who have experienced homelessness for long periods or repeatedly over time. They often struggle with complex issues such as mental health problems, substance abuse, or disabilities, which make it difficult for them to maintain stable housing.
2. Episodic homelessness: Individuals experiencing episodic homelessness go through multiple episodes of homelessness throughout their lives. They may face challenges like unstable employment, lack of affordable housing, or inadequate social support systems.
3. Transitional homelessness: This type of homelessness is temporary and occurs when an individual or family faces a crisis or life transition, such as job loss, eviction, or escaping domestic violence. With proper support, people in this category can usually regain stable housing.
4. Hidden homelessness: Hidden homelessness refers to individuals who do not have a permanent residence but are not visibly homeless. They may be temporarily staying with friends or family, living in overcrowded conditions, or residing in places not meant for habitation, such as cars or abandoned buildings.
5. Youth homelessness: Young people who have left or been forced out of their homes, often due to family conflict, abuse, or neglect, experience youth homelessness. They may face unique challenges such as lack of life skills, education, or employment opportunities.
I think the fact that there are habitually antisocial people in the first category (chronic homeless) sours the voting populace against the whole idea of 'homelessness' because there isn't enough distinction in the term. And that is a shame because while the chronic homeless may be the most visible and difficult to address, the majority of homeless people fall into the other categories, and they (and we!) reap huge benefits from social programs.
I don't think that this is unusual.
Staving off the obvious retort - I don't have some sort of silver spoon upbringing, my parents and childhood peers are supermarket workers, bus drivers etc.
People I know and socialise with just spend within their means, live in places that aren't hilariously expensive, have an emergency fund etc. They plan their lives around being able to provide for themselves and not burdening others.
Very few people I know could afford to live a normal life somewhere like SF.
I don't think that homeless people are subhuman as some people here mention, that's clearly a strawman. But I don't consider them to be my peers either.
We're talking multiple stabbings/shootings per month, people shitting on the sidewalk, a significant risk that you'll be be harassed in an unpredictable way (e.g. a homeless person swinging a hammer and screaming in a way that's impossible to deescalate), high risk of fires or exploding RVs, and even mundane/"harmless" things like methheads uprooting literally every flower from your garden (this happened to me).
We're talking about a situation where these people are literally terrorizing neighborhoods. There will be maybe 50 homeless people and ~5000+ neighbors, and that small group can ruin the place to the extent that kids can no longer walk to school.
After these experiences, I'm a lot more skeptical about homeless services. I don't want them to die, but at some point forced drug treatment or forced incarceration would be more humane than providing "services" and letting them all OD and die on the streets.
"Emergency housing is a drain on taxpayer dollars." "Job placement is taking jobs away from locals." "Soup kitchens are another drain on taxpayer money." "Homeless services are a waste of money."
It makes me sick how people can act when it comes to the homeless population when so many of us are just 1 bad month away from being homeless ourselves.