I have seen many posts about removing benches or making spiked surfaces to deter the homeless. They cannot exist simply out of malice.
In: Other
[removed]
Not necessarily malice, but typically it’s from not wanting to see them or be hassled by them, and it’s easier than trying to address the actual problems that cause homelessness.
Why is it easier than addressing the root problems? Well, some people consider the problem unsolvable. Others think homeless people *want* to be homeless. Others think homeless people are themeselves lazy and could get out of their situation if they “really tried”.
Many people don’t want hobos taking up space at a subway station. They intimidate people, remind people of unhappy things, and may even berate people for handouts. They take up valuable space and contribute little. From a business standpoint, they’re bad to have around.
The same reasons apply for banning panhandlers from being out front of stores, in various public spaces, and so on.
They seem heartless, but part of me gets it. I’ve been harassed by beggars and panhandlers a fair amount. Most of them are nice enough, but even the nicest ones make people uncomfortable, and the ones that aren’t nice are awful.
I say this as someone who goes out of their way to interact with these people. I have no disdain for them. However, because I see so many, I do see quite a few bad ones too.
I once walked into a McDonald’s in Center City Philadelphia. There was a homeless guy sitting outside the restaurant. He asked me for a buck. I offered to buy him lunch, and he said, “Fuck off.”
Outside a Taco Bell, I saw a homeless guy sitting by the door. He didn’t say anything to me. I bought him a lunch, handed to him. He took it, and we never spoke. I could see him eating it as I drove away.
The homeless aren’t a homogeneous group. I volunteered at the Philadelphia Drop in Center. Three hots and cot, plus one clean pair of underwear and socks. Three days later, and back on the street you went.
We offered everyone a counseling, temporary housing, addiction counseling, you name it. The vast majority didn’t see why we would think they needed help.
The least restrictive laws in the United States have pretty much left the government powerless to take someone off the street unless street unless they pose a danger to themselves or others. Philly has a code blue system, where if the temperature gets too low, wanting to stay on the streets is considered being a danger to yourself.
Why are there anti-homeless measures? In many cases, it is an attempt to compel people to seek help. And in many more, it is to keep the homeless out of sight, and away from tourist and working areas.
[removed]
In theory there are reasonable arguments to be made for closing off areas to the homeless. I’m not going to get into those arguments though because they are really never made in good faith.
The societies that do this are not taking the steps needed to help these people and are instead just trying to sweep the problem out of the public eye.
You have to consider that every homeless person represents a failure by government in some fundamental way. These people were soldiers who were wounded by their service and then denied help to heal. These people were children who were abandoned by society and denied a chance at life. These people were beset by mental illness and never given the therapy and care needed to see them function. Very very very rarely we also have drug addicts who frankly were hurt by the way on drugs and ought to have been getting help and instead got thrown into a cruel punitive system.
If we were doing things right and you then wanted to stop someone from loitering in a subway station then be my guest. But right now this is about keeping society from seeing it’s own shortcomings.
With that said… Society has a very interesting opinion of help and a lot of what we did in the past with the best of intentions really hurt. So homelessness is a problem we really have to approach with care and humility and an iron clad drive that we do not more harm.
People don’t like being around homeless (in the sense of “on the street”) people. They’re often mentally ill, often smelly and not very nice to look at, and occasionally aggressive. It’s sometimes malicious in the sense of “people are often self-centered and are mad at someone for making their day less pleasant”, but sometimes it’s just “people really don’t want to see it”.
On the level of governments that tend to be implementing these measures: they get elected by people feeling like they’ve improved things. Getting problems out of public view (whether or not they’re actually solved) is a good way to do that. Again, not _exactly_ malice – they’re not actively going out of their way to hurt the homeless – but it’s at least self-centeredness.
There are all sorts of reasons.
MN will have highs near 0F and lows in the negative teens all week. It’s good public policy to get people out of tents and off the streets and into shelters so they do not die.
I’m not 100% on this but I’ve heard that the reason is to get people off the streets and into homeless shelters, where they would (theoretically) be better off
They’re not anti-homeless measures.
Anti-homeless measures would be things like community support, affordable housing, mental health programs, addiction treatment etc, etc.
They’re anti-homeless people measures.
Their purpose is to keep homeless people away from an area. Nothing more.
If you think that’s heartless, then I agree with you. But I’m not going to debate that with anyone here.
Latest Answers