• Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why the illegal part, though? People don’t really need an incentive to have shelter. It just punishes people who are struggling with even deeper issues.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Technically it’s not illegal to sleep on the street, but there are sanitation rules regarding it. NYC has 8 million people. Any problem you can think of is magnified. It’s literally a sanitary issue if you allow thousands of people to camp outside.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/nyregion/nyc-homeless-camp-bill-of-rights.html

      In New York City, there are many rules on the books that have been used to restrict sleeping rough.

      One is a piece of sanitation code that makes it unlawful to leave “any box, barrel, bale or merchandise or other movable property” or to erect “any shed, building or other obstruction” on “any public place.”

      In city parks, it is illegal to “engage in camping, or erect or maintain a tent, shelter or camp” without a permit, or to be in a park at all between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. unless posted rules state otherwise.

      And on the property of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, both underground and in outdoor elevated subway stations, it is a form of banned disorderly conduct to “sleep or doze” in any manner that “may interfere” with the comfort of passengers. Nor may subway riders “lie down or place feet on the seat of a train, bus or platform bench or occupy more than one seat” or “place bags or personal items on seats” in ways that “impede the comfort of other passengers.”

      Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don’t get in the way.

      someone who did not violate any of those rules — say, someone who set a sleeping bag in an out-of-the-way spot under a highway overpass and did not put up any kind of shelter — was legally in the clear, at least in theory.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don’t get in the way.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          This doesn’t apply because the law doesn’t forbid anyone from sleeping under bridges. Also, you can get housing for free. That’s my point. It’s the opposite of that quote. Unless you’re pro-theft or something.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              There are a ton of articles on it. The system is huge and has been around for decades. Look it up if you like. If you don’t care, don’t.

              No one said it was good at all. It’s a necessary service in a big city. Obviously some shelters are very different from others. None of them are at nice hotels, but you can get your own room and a place for some of your stuff.

              The major complaints are usually “it’s too small” or “they don’t let me have pets”. Guess what? There are actual apartments people pay for that are too small and don’t allow pets. It’s NYC.

              I’m talking about reality in this century. You’re quoting an 1800s writer from another country. The system is a complicated solution to a complicated problem. So there’s not going to be any simple answer, and definitely not from online quotes.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                If you lack a sense of humor and can’t see how close your quote was to his, that’s fine. It was funny to me and maybe others. That you haven’t learned something people were joking about hundreds of years ago is kinda on you.

                The effects of violating these fair and just laws - do they impact the homeless and the housed the same? Do the laws, say, give fines based on income? Or do they give preferential treatment to people with better, often more expensive lawyers?

                But no, your statement wasn’t silly at all. The law is totally fair to the poor and wealthy alike.

                I would have to talk to a homeless person who was homeless recently in NYC and used these programs to assess them.

                Where should they leave their pets, ESAs, and service dogs when they stay in the shelter? Do you think roaming packs of dogs at night would be good?

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It’s a glowed up version of “The law binds both rich and poor equally”. A transparently untrue statement that’s meant to draw attention to laws that are a mere inconvenience for the rich but seriously hurt the poor.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Obviously they restrict people who have homes but that isn’t really relevant here, is it? Those people have choices, they get to choose to stay late in a park and the alternative for them is go home.

        It’s not even close to the same thing.

        • Zorque@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          They didn’t say it was the same thing, they just mentioned that it’s not just to target the homeless.

          As you said in another comment, things are often more complex than one thing or another.

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Exactly. These are necessary rules for a large city. No one can camp without a permit because then parks would be unusable. The same permit is for weddings, parties, whatever. It’s pretty easy to get one for a few hours, but they will reject it if you ask to use the park every day and night.

            People living outside in public parks and on streets is a really bad use of urban space. It takes public space and makes it private. That’s why the city gives out free room in old hotels and shelters. It’s a good thing people can’t sleep wherever.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s not to mention that it gets very cold in NYC in the winter, unlike San Francisco. If you’re stuck outside in the winter in NYC, you will die.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      People don’t really need an incentive to have shelter

      Not necessarily true. For example if the place has “no alcohol and no being drunk” policy, some of them will rather stay out.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Right but that’s a choice the shelter can make and not a point against the idea that people, ultimately, won’t really refuse a place to sleep. It’s a more complex issue that takes more time than an evening so rules like “no being drunk” which sound fine don’t really help anyone.

        • Zorque@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’d imagine it’d help make the unhoused who don’t want to have to deal with drunk people feel a lot safer about using them.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            So what are the people who depend on alcohol supposed to do? They aren’t allowed to have seizures and go through withdrawal there either.

          • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            and if you want to use public money on it, then the goal has to be to help them get back to society, to which dealing with problematic behavioral patterns, like substance abuse, is a necessity…

              • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                What’s your point? They should continue drinking themselves to death?

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You let them continue until they can get a spot in a medical setting where they can safely withdraw.

                  • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago
                    1. that safe setting may very well be the shelter we are talking about

                    2. you are steering away from subject. it is absolutely fair to tell them “being homeless and nuisance in the street is from now on illegal. either you want help to get back to society and then you will accept the help with its terms - you are really not in a position to make demands - or you can move to some unabomber cabin in the middle of nowhere, and there you can do whatever you want”

      • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        no. shut the fuck up with this authoritarian garbage. when the “shelter” offered comes with a slew of dehumanizing draconian traditions, forces them to abandon other resources (including pets, which are also functional when you’re homeless) and wildly precarious, you would have to be fucking stupid to take the deal. cut this shit out, or let me impose those conditions on YOUR shelter.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Hey, just to get it off my chest since you attacked me for no reason other than some preconception you brought with you, fuck you too!

          Now that I’ve dealt with that, back to the topic. Some people don’t want structure, or shelter, or society, or any of it. It doesn’t matter if there’s no conditions applied, they just don’t want it.

          I remember years ago reading about this guy who was the director of a huge hospital. He was worth millions of dollars. He could do anything he wanted to do. Guess what he wanted to do? He wanted to live on the streets and drink alcohol until he died. He left his mansion, and his family, and went and drank himself to death on the streets. Was he mentally ill? Probably, man! But if anyone had access to every available option for help that existed, it was him. He didn’t want it. He wanted to be a drunk homeless person.

          So my point stands. You can offer whatever catch-all, condition-free solution you want, and some people are still going to reject it. That’s just reality, regardless of what we wish.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Are you talking about Todd Waters? Otherwise link source. It’s pretty rare for someone to want that lifestyle unless they’ve already involuntarily experienced it previously. Todd had started trainhopping when he was in high school.

            I know of one other individual who is a millionaire and has a mansion he sleeps in, but during the day appears to be homeless and pushes a cart around cleaning up cans and trash. He’s beloved by his local community (very nice man and generous tipper). He also experienced living on the street involuntarily previously and got an inheritance.

            https://newscut.mprnews.org/2017/07/todd-waters-mission-was-to-make-people-homesick-for-their-freedom/index.html

            Waters was a “hobo” who proudly noted in 2012 that he’s been arrested about 70 times jumping railroad cars out of St. Paul for parts unknown and known. He was also a millionaire.

            “My life went south after my wife ran off with a bartender to Arizona. I sold everything I owned and hit the ‘first thing smokin’, running away, then after a year or so, drifting where ever I damned well pleased. I got off ‘the road’ after a few years to settle down,” he wrote on Hobo Times. “That lasted about three weeks. I was homesick for ‘the road’. I returned to ‘the road’. That lasted a few months until I got homesick for settled society. That lasted until I got homesick for the road again.”

            Somewhere along the line, he got in the advertising business, made a lot of money, and lived in a million-dollar home on Lake Minnetonka.

            Todd’s childhood friend, Bill Martin, once asked him why he would leave the comfort and security of his family and his Lake Minnetonka home every summer for 40 years to live the hobo life, with no money and no phone, exposing himself to danger, dodging the law and sleeping out in the elements. He replied, “It’s the freedom I feel.” The more risks he took, and the less he had in his pack, the more he was free to experience.

            While Todd rubbed shoulders with the wealthy, prominent and powerful, the people he probably respected most for their guts and straightforwardness were hobos. So before hiring account executives for his agencies Waters Advertising, Waters & Company and WatersMolitor, Inc. he sometimes asked candidates to hit the streets and panhandle. He insisted that the people he worked with be brave, and know how to close a sale.

            • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              No, not him. I can’t find a source. I read about it in a newspaper, or magazine like 15-20 years ago. If I remember correctly, he was the director of St. Agnes hospital in Fresno, CA.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                So 3 people we know of between the two of us were wealthy and lived some type of homeless lifestyle occasionally to full time. And so by your logic, the remaining hundreds of thousands of homeless should be penalized and not offered housing because these 3 individuals would decline it?

                • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I never said any such thing. All I said was that unfortunately some people do need incentive to have shelter. Which I substantiated with an example, and you did as well. They’re the minority, but some people just flat out don’t want what we want. That has no bearing on what we should do for the people who do want and need shelter.

                  • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Oh sorry, I may have mistaken you for a different commenter then. Lemmy’s reply system isn’t super easy for me to navigate.

                    I think if a millionaire wants to rough it, camp, etc, they should be allowed to. Any adult should be allowed to roam. It’s what our ancestors did.

          • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            WHY do these people not want structure, or shelter, or society?

            have you considered that? have you fucking asked that? why someone might want to see the world burn? or do you just accept when you’re told they do, and assume they’re a magical evil monster?

            I used to do a lot of work with unhoused populations. I tended to get those people, because nobody else could deal with them. I could, because the structure I offered wasn’t coercive, the shelter I offered was clearly defined (when I could offer any) and no-strings-attached, and the society I was working for was one that would include them and give them a voice and treat them like fucking human beings.

            okay. so someone wanted to drink on the streets. there’s a reason. maybe a dumb reason, maybe a crazy reason, but a reason. I’ve been pretty close to taking this option before, once after seeing some shit that an emergency room kicked out, once after dealing with police victims. if I had been complicit and tied into existing systems, if I hadn’t read all the theory and committed myself to working against oppression, I would have done something an awful lot like that.

            seems like you just really enjoy throwing people away, and don’t want to put any effort into understanding awful shit that they’ve experienced and how it motivates them to do the things they do, which you sometimes find odd.

            • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              why do the sociopaths who declare noncompliant unhoused people ontologically evil want us to understand them, when they won’t even try to understand the people who make THEM uncomfortable?