archive.ph
archive.ph
  • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    83·
    1 day ago

    Is…is an RV not shelter? I mean it’s maybe not Permanent Housing but living in an RV is almost always gonna be better than being in a shelter. These libs are fucking monsters.

    • TerkErJerbs@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      5 hours ago

      This is a new term for me… I’ve been one of tens of thousands of the “motorhomeless” (living out of vehicles) 3 times in the last 4 years. I managed to keep my wfh/remote job through it all. In two of the three displacements I was "landlords use"d out of my housing and couldn’t find anything in my price range (even while I make good money) because I have dogs, and refuse to pay 60% or more of my income to keep a roof over my head.

      I’m coming from an early adulthood of being an actual street addict and NFA wanderer. The atmosphere out there over the past decade is extremely different than it was 20+ years ago.

      I feel like more people should read The Grapes of Wrath because that’s kinda what’s coming if things don’t let up. The class war is palpable and sometime soon those going without may actually outnumber the haves and all these landlord capitalist class assholes are gonna feign surprise that their starving workers aren’t more grateful for the leftovers they’re thrown over the fence while the pinkertons burn down their shacks and then jail (and kill) them for “vagrancy” (those laws are still on the books btw).

      Good times.

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      34·
      1 day ago

      The housing for the homeless in SF is a disgrace considering how wealthy that area is. From the Bluesky thread a post described the following article as…

      Gee idk is the no food, the no cooking, no personal freedom, or the r*pes that might make people feel safer in their vehicles or on the street?

      I only scanned this article - I’m sure there’s (much) more that I didn’t see.

      Why do some SF homeless people choose the street over a bed?

      Some complained of the shelters’ unsanitary conditions and dearth of food; residents are served two meals a day, the sites’ employees said. Others, particularly women concerned about sexual assault and harassment, have long complained about security and the lack of freedom to walk in and out of the shelters at will.

      Rules that govern all city shelters forbid, among other “disruptive” behaviors, drug use, destruction of property, and the possession of unchecked weapons. Still, those affected by the sweeps described high rates of theft, crowded and chaotic living quarters, and unsympathetic staff. They criticized the congregate shelters’ lack of privacy, saying they would rather sleep in their own tent than in a room with dozens of strangers.

      […]

      Across the city’s shelters, residents are required to sign in and out; it’s a simple way to keep track of peoples’ whereabouts while maintaining a low barrier for entry, staff said. Staff can’t force guests to stay or return. But this system, coupled with periodic wellness checks, allows them to monitor how often the shelters’ resources are being used. If someone is gone for more than 48 hours, they forfeit their bed.

      […]

      The city tries to make the most of the space it has, Cohen said. That means that some buildings, like Next Door, a former car dealership, have their eccentricities. “This reminds me of a prison setup,” said Marshall, the shelter’s housing director, pointing to a small room enclosed by glass at the center of the women’s floor that is used as a common area. “COs would be right here,” Marshall noted, using the acronym for “corrections officers.”

      • bortsampson [he/him, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        12 hours ago

        Issue is where you park it, if you don’t have permission to park it where it is that’s trespassing.

        If people are parking on private property in California too fucking bad. You brought this on yourselves. I’ve heard this argument made on Thiel’s personal bootlicker reddit HackerNews. The thing is, if you drill down into most of the comments the people are really complaining about not getting street parking by their houses or the smell. Look, I get it, everyone draining their waste into the stormwater drains is a public health issue and it fucking makes everything smell in the heat. The same people that are complaining are the same ones that refuse to have public housing in their neighborhood or having their taxes raised. God forbid you do the logical thing and solve the problem instead of towing it to Oakland. If it wasn’t absolutely abhorent it would almost be comical. Capitalists drive people into homelessness. Capitalist protection thugs in CIA sell drugs to homeless to fund capitalist protection. Capitalists complain about homeless and drugs.

        • Diuretic_Materialism [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          11·
          1 day ago

          To and extend I’d agree. If you own a bunch of property you’re not using then yes, people should be allowed to use it productively. Idk if I’d want to let people into my apartment to use my toothbrush.

          Perhaps a controversial take: I honestly think the best short term solution to the homelessness problem is just for the city to buy/seize some vacant lots and let them be open camping zones. People get freaked out by this because of the whole “sanctuary zones” from Star Trek thing, but honestly I think it’s probably better than having the population spread across the city living on side walks and parks. If you have one specific location where people can camp you can more easily provide services to them, have toilets and showers, send one of those mobile health clinic things parked there, maybe have some local orgs do soup kitchens to get people food.

          The more permanent solution is to provide people fucking housing but that takes time.