AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

US Making it Illegal to be Homeless

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I live in a city where if they catch you panhandling in certain areas, you can get arrested.

So, this is not uncommon for me to see. It's still awful. I agree that making it "illegal" isn't going to make things better. It's just awful.
It's telling people that if you're not able to do anything, you're not worth their time.
 
That article is super simplistic. Hawaii is second to California in the percentage of homeless people, something about the weather obviously. If government does nothing then homeless people sleep in parks and beaches and make a complete mess of the public restrooms. Needless to say it scares tourist to be confronted by often mentally ill homeless person when you try and use the restroom that they consider their home. It happened to me on many occasions, but after dealing with crazy street people Berkeley nothing fazes me. The couple from Boise who spent thousands on their Hawaii vacation may not be so tolerant.

Less tourist-->Less tax revenue--> less money to build facilities and fund treatment for homeless.
So the city council passed a variety of laws making sleeping on the sidewalk, having a tent in public park after dark etc, illegal. All designed to encourage homeless people to go to various shelters. Some of which are new and decent looking. Most of the times the cops don't actually arrest the homeless person, but rather give them the choice of going to a shelter or jail, it is a lot cheaper to put somebody in shelter than a jail, so they encourage them to go to a shelter. A large percentage of chronically homeless (as opposed to folks who are just down on their luck cause of job loss) have serious substance abuse problem and/or mental illness. Often the only way to get them to accept treatment is to threaten them with jail.

Despite all the complaints about the laws, they seem to be working for both the citizen, it is not scary to be in the parks and beaches after dark, and the homeless higher occupancy rates for the shelters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
HiGirlsRHot said:
Despite all the complaints about the laws, they seem to be working for both the citizen, it is not scary to be in the parks and beaches after dark, and the homeless higher occupancy rates for the shelters.

How is the success of this program measured? Is it just on higher occupancy rates of shelters and a decrease in rough sleeping? Do the shelters have adequate facilities to deal with the complex mental illnesses and addictions that a lot of rough sleepers have or are they just used to get them 'out of sight, out of mind'? Has the law had an economic impact or increased visitor numbers to the city? And assuming it has benefited the economy have any of these extra funds been directed towards additional programs for the homeless? Have the views of those who are impacted most by the law, the homeless themselves, been even sought or considered?

I'm not targeting the questions at you directly I just think that measures of success can be very biased and that these type of questions should be addressed. I volunteered for a number of years with a homeless charity group doing soup runs in the inner city so have a little insight albeit it was a European city so the issues will likely differ slightly.

I agree that the original article is overly simplistic but so is the assumption that by passing a law to get the homeless off the street the problem is solved. I personally disagree entirely in penalising some of the most vulnerable in society in this manner. It wouldnt be a law I would support. But I would be a little more inclined to see it as less of a "cleaning up the streets for the rest of the community/tourists etc" and more of a "help" to the homeless themselves if it was supported with a range of both preventive and treatment programs to address the difficult issues which often accompany homelessness - mental ill health, alcohol and drug addition etc. :twocents-02cents:
 
They would make a better impact on the community by creating more programs to help homeless people find and keep work/housing than by creating more laws. Is this where humanity is now? Good grief. It's really not hard to end up homeless if you live paycheck to paycheck.
 
JickyJuly said:
They would make a better impact on the community by creating more programs to help homeless people find and keep work/housing than by creating more laws. Is this where humanity is now? Good grief. It's really not hard to end up homeless if you live paycheck to paycheck.

There are more people than there are good jobs, even if they could all work. When you have over nine million people unemployed, and only four million openings then it cannot work out. Until people in our society stop aiming to be king of the hill, then I doubt it will get better.
 
HiGirlsRHot said:
That article is super simplistic. Hawaii is second to California in the percentage of homeless people, something about the weather obviously. If government does nothing then homeless people sleep in parks and beaches and make a complete mess of the public restrooms. Needless to say it scares tourist to be confronted by often mentally ill homeless person when you try and use the restroom that they consider their home. It happened to me on many occasions, but after dealing with crazy street people Berkeley nothing fazes me. The couple from Boise who spent thousands on their Hawaii vacation may not be so tolerant.

Less tourist-->Less tax revenue--> less money to build facilities and fund treatment for homeless.
So the city council passed a variety of laws making sleeping on the sidewalk, having a tent in public park after dark etc, illegal. All designed to encourage homeless people to go to various shelters. Some of which are new and decent looking. Most of the times the cops don't actually arrest the homeless person, but rather give them the choice of going to a shelter or jail, it is a lot cheaper to put somebody in shelter than a jail, so they encourage them to go to a shelter. A large percentage of chronically homeless (as opposed to folks who are just down on their luck cause of job loss) have serious substance abuse problem and/or mental illness. Often the only way to get them to accept treatment is to threaten them with jail.

Despite all the complaints about the laws, they seem to be working for both the citizen, it is not scary to be in the parks and beaches after dark, and the homeless higher occupancy rates for the shelters.

I can see your point. There have been times where I have gone to the city and have been terrified of a mentally ill homeless person. I've been threatened, cussed out, followed, and harassed by homeless people who are not well psychologically. The real problem is though america is all about its money and not about its citizens. If your a reason money is going out versus in, then is our government really going to care whats better for you? Not at all. Instead of putting out the money to jail these unfortunate souls, which costs A LOT of money. They could take that money and invest it more into shelters or other great programs to help the homeless. I doubt people even a ill person would choose to sleep on a sidewalk with no food versus a bed with a blanket and some soup. If there so worried the homeless are scaring people with money off, there are countless ideas to fix the problem other then wasting our tax dollars by throwing them in a jail for the night. I can personally say I'm so disappointed in the direction this country is going.
 
The rise in homelessness is because of the lack of mental healthcare in many places across the US. They also look at people with certain disorders, whether it be something that was pure genetics, or whether or not it was something they became a victim of due to other circumstances (e.g. PTSD caused by war or combat), with pure disdain.

It is about money in many cases, but it's also that we see a "Crazy" person and deem them as not salvageable, because they're fargone.

A lot of homeless people are supposed to be on anti-psychotic meds, but like any person, they start to feel better, and stop taking them, and go off the grid.
You have a right to get nervous about people with erratic behavior, but how cops and other people treat them, is in my opinion, much worse.
 
JordanBlack said:
On a related note, this has happened across the pond. They started putting spikes outside buildings to deter homeless people from sleeping. The outcry was so big they had to remove them eventually.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/cit ... flats.html

I think this is entirely different than having a law against it. This is a business deciding what they want to allow on their PRIVATE property. If I don't want strangers sleeping in my yard, I should be allowed to prevent that, and have the police tell them to leave if necessary. I don't see why a business should be any different, especially considering it likely lowers sales. If a freeloader camps out in our camrooms and starts deterring paying customers, we ban them, right?
 
NataliaGrey said:
JordanBlack said:
On a related note, this has happened across the pond. They started putting spikes outside buildings to deter homeless people from sleeping. The outcry was so big they had to remove them eventually.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/cit ... flats.html

I think this is entirely different than having a law against it. This is a business deciding what they want to allow on their PRIVATE property. If I don't want strangers sleeping in my yard, I should be allowed to prevent that, and have the police tell them to leave if necessary. I don't see why a business should be any different, especially considering it likely lowers sales. If a freeloader camps out in our camrooms and starts deterring paying customers, we ban them, right?

Both measures, the one that Megan posted and I posted, have one thing in common they are INHUMANE in my opinion, you can choose to see it differently of course.

We're talking about a public sidewalk in a civilized western capital being covered in spikes. However you want to defend or detract the homeless from settling in your back yard it's a totally different thing.

Plus the removal of spikes has come as an instruction from the mayor of London. The laws differ greatly from country to country, same for mentalities.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... ess-spikes
 
JordanBlack said:
NataliaGrey said:
JordanBlack said:
On a related note, this has happened across the pond. They started putting spikes outside buildings to deter homeless people from sleeping. The outcry was so big they had to remove them eventually.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/cit ... flats.html

I think this is entirely different than having a law against it. This is a business deciding what they want to allow on their PRIVATE property. If I don't want strangers sleeping in my yard, I should be allowed to prevent that, and have the police tell them to leave if necessary. I don't see why a business should be any different, especially considering it likely lowers sales. If a freeloader camps out in our camrooms and starts deterring paying customers, we ban them, right?

Both measures, the one that Megan posted and I posted, have one thing in common they are INHUMANE in my opinion, you can choose to see it differently of course.

We're talking about a public sidewalk in a civilized western capital being covered in spikes. However you want to defend or detract the homeless from settling in your back yard it's a totally different thing.

Plus the removal of spikes has come as an instruction from the mayor of London. The laws differ greatly from country to country, same for mentalities.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... ess-spikes

I just don't think it's fair to the people living in those apartments, and the people who own them. That isn't a public block, that's why the mayor couldn't just have them taken down, he had to convince the owners of the property. I don't personally see it as inhumane, to me inhumane would be forcing people to sleep on those spikes, but they don't have to. They can go to a shelter, or they can even move onto the next doorstep. Maybe the people who signed that petition will allow them to sleep on their porch. I understand not everyone is mentally capable of seeking help, but should a private company have to take on that task? I don't know, I think their responsibility is to keep their tenants feeling secure, and that's what they were trying to do.
 
graciereilly said:
HiGirlsRHot said:
Despite all the complaints about the laws, they seem to be working for both the citizen, it is not scary to be in the parks and beaches after dark, and the homeless higher occupancy rates for the shelters.

How is the success of this program measured? Is it just on higher occupancy rates of shelters and a decrease in rough sleeping? Do the shelters have adequate facilities to deal with the complex mental illnesses and addictions that a lot of rough sleepers have or are they just used to get them 'out of sight, out of mind'? Has the law had an economic impact or increased visitor numbers to the city? And assuming it has benefited the economy have any of these extra funds been directed towards additional programs for the homeless? Have the views of those who are impacted most by the law, the homeless themselves, been even sought or considered?

I'm not targeting the questions at you directly I just think that measures of success can be very biased and that these type of questions should be addressed. I volunteered for a number of years with a homeless charity group doing soup runs in the inner city so have a little insight albeit it was a European city so the issues will likely differ slightly.

I agree that the original article is overly simplistic but so is the assumption that by passing a law to get the homeless off the street the problem is solved. I personally disagree entirely in penalising some of the most vulnerable in society in this manner. It wouldnt be a law I would support. But I would be a little more inclined to see it as less of a "cleaning up the streets for the rest of the community/tourists etc" and more of a "help" to the homeless themselves if it was supported with a range of both preventive and treatment programs to address the difficult issues which often accompany homelessness - mental ill health, alcohol and drug addition etc. :twocents-02cents:

I haven't seen much in the way of measurements from the law, although I'd argue that higher usage rates of shelters and the public being able to use restrooms is a somewhat of success. On the other hand the author presented no data at all on the impact of the law, just "oh what a mean law, must be bad.". She also neglected to mention that anti-loitering have been on the books in most places for generations, and we don't see hundreds of thousands of homeless people being rounded up and tossed in jail. For instance, Portland, Tacoma, San Francisco and Seattle have recently banned sitting or lying down on public sidewalks in certain neighborhoods during certain times of day.

Broadly speaking you have two types of homeless, the folks like single mom leaving an abusive relationship who want and need a shelter. The vast majority of times the cops are going to tell/take the mom to the shelter and not arrest her. I'd argue getting a person like that off the streets and into a shelter is a good thing. The second type is the chronic homeless and of those the most need help with mental illness and/or substance abuse. The problems is that in many cases that don't want help. They are off their meds or self medicate with booze or drugs they don't think they need help.

It is not hard to convince a mental ill person to go to a shelter when it is -10F out, when its 60 degrees at night in California or Hawaii, it isn't so easy. Sure a shelter offers a bed, and a hot meal, but shelters also impose lots of rules. The most important one being no booze, no drugs. The also have curfews, and they don't let you sleep until noon. So for the mentally ill homeless the trade off of having to give up their booze or drugs, and the legitimate issues of being afraid of being ripped off, means they'd rather sleep on the streets. If they want to sleep in some out of the way place, I am fine with that. The problem is when they interfere with the quality of life for the rest of the population.

At this point societies options are pretty bad. We can let the mental ill just stay on the street pissing and taking a shit where they want and tell the rest of the population learn to deal with them. This was the approach that Berkeley took, and while it added to the zaniness of the place it gets old. We can rouse them for drug charges, public urination, begging etc. and toss them in jail. But cops have to observe them breaking the law to arrest them and the last thing this country needs more people in jail. We can go back to the not good at all old days, where a couple of doctors could decide a person was crazy and lock them up in pysch ward. Or we can use laws like these and threat of jail to coerce mental ill homeless people into shelters. Worse case they get a hot meal and shower, best case they find the help they need. Is there sufficient resources to help all those with mental health issues? probably not.

I doubt many think that passing laws targeting homeless people is going to solve the problems of chronic homelessness. On the other hand if we have a resource, unused shelter beds, than it is really unclear how throwing more money at the problem will help it either.
 
Should businesses be forced to deal with the homeless population? I guess not. But, putting spikes on your part of the sidewalk to fend off people who are already suffering SHOULD make the public like your business less and choose to spend their money elsewhere. A lot of businesses get great buzz and maybe even make extra money by welcoming the less fortunate, treating them with some compassion and dignity and letting the community know about it.

A lot of homeless people don't go to shelters for valid reasons or at least understandable reasons. Many people who are homeless do work, and most shelters have a cut off time for showing up. If they work weird hours, getting into the shelter might not be possible without losing more money. Many people are in denial or embarrassed by their level of need. Addicts might avoid the shelter to keep from being surrounded/locked in by people who will notice they're not sober. Some shelters weed out addicts. Lastly, many shelters are full or less safe than the street. Homelessness doesn't just happen to a few groups of people. It can really happen to anyone, and some people just don't know what to do or are afraid when it does happen.
 
I've always lived along corridors where the homeless populations are higher than anywhere else, mostly transient folk but plenty of long term locals as well. All of these places have also had insanely incredible shelter options with resources for work assistance and substance abuse. The amount of tax payer dollars that go into this are incredibly high, so to see someone choosing to not accept the help and continue to sleep on someones private property, leaving a huge mess constantly and severely negatively impacting that persons business... it's kind of a slap in the face. I can honestly see where some cities are coming from with this law...

It feels mean, I get that. but when all options HAVE actually been made as easy and accessible as possible and a person still chooses to set up camp in a private businesses entry way and piss all over there walk... What's left? What's the next step?
 
Listening to everyone's posts, I'm definitely on the fence.
My first reaction is, "that's mean!"
Then I think about it from a business stand point. If I owned a business, would I want homeless people sleeping near my front door? It DOES drive customers away. I definitely have avoided certain areas and shops that have homeless people near by.
There are fancy parts of SoCal that barely have any homeless people there. I suspect it's because the law enforcement makes it difficult to live there. These places are highly popular amongst the rich and the businesses there seem to go really well because of the people they attract.
Maybe morally it isn't right, but business wise, it could be a good thing.
 
NataliaGrey said:
JordanBlack said:
NataliaGrey said:
JordanBlack said:
On a related note, this has happened across the pond. They started putting spikes outside buildings to deter homeless people from sleeping. The outcry was so big they had to remove them eventually.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/cit ... flats.html

I think this is entirely different than having a law against it. This is a business deciding what they want to allow on their PRIVATE property. If I don't want strangers sleeping in my yard, I should be allowed to prevent that, and have the police tell them to leave if necessary. I don't see why a business should be any different, especially considering it likely lowers sales. If a freeloader camps out in our camrooms and starts deterring paying customers, we ban them, right?

Both measures, the one that Megan posted and I posted, have one thing in common they are INHUMANE in my opinion, you can choose to see it differently of course.

We're talking about a public sidewalk in a civilized western capital being covered in spikes. However you want to defend or detract the homeless from settling in your back yard it's a totally different thing.

Plus the removal of spikes has come as an instruction from the mayor of London. The laws differ greatly from country to country, same for mentalities.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... ess-spikes

I just don't think it's fair to the people living in those apartments, and the people who own them. That isn't a public block, that's why the mayor couldn't just have them taken down, he had to convince the owners of the property. I don't personally see it as inhumane, to me inhumane would be forcing people to sleep on those spikes, but they don't have to. They can go to a shelter, or they can even move onto the next doorstep. Maybe the people who signed that petition will allow them to sleep on their porch. I understand not everyone is mentally capable of seeking help, but should a private company have to take on that task? I don't know, I think their responsibility is to keep their tenants feeling secure, and that's what they were trying to do.

The whole "hostile arhitecture" trend implemented by businesses sort of had a backlash, while their reasoning for putting them up was the same with the one you have described - to "protect" their tenants, the fear of losing customers (ex. Tesco) etc, those same people that brought them the business found their actions outrageous.

From a business sense of view, you'd rather comply with the public requests and views rather than risk of having your company name tarnished and associated with the act of cruelty against a less fortunate social category. They were prone to lose more business than actually gaining by trying to protect it. They realized the fuck-up and they removed them.

I certainly understand your arguments, but those businesses wanted to protect their clients or their tenants, but what they forgot to take into account is human compassion. And in the case of the apartment building it probably didn't help that it was a luxury one, so it sort of put people off thinking that yet again the rich look down on the poor.
 
JoleneBrody said:
I've always lived along corridors where the homeless populations are higher than anywhere else, mostly transient folk but plenty of long term locals as well. All of these places have also had insanely incredible shelter options with resources for work assistance and substance abuse. The amount of tax payer dollars that go into this are incredibly high, so to see someone choosing to not accept the help and continue to sleep on someones private property, leaving a huge mess constantly and severely negatively impacting that persons business... it's kind of a slap in the face. I can honestly see where some cities are coming from with this law...

It feels mean, I get that. but when all options HAVE actually been made as easy and accessible as possible and a person still chooses to set up camp in a private businesses entry way and piss all over there walk... What's left? What's the next step?

I completely and totally agree with this statement. We pay taxes to help the homeless, if your not going to accept the help because you want to get drunk and high and don't want to follow rules. Then you probably should go to jail. Most people don't want to work, but they have to because that is life. If your not going to improve and move on from your shitty lifestyle. Then your life will just become worse, and if jail is the answer. Then thats not inhumane. Thats just life. You put yourself there, no one else to blame. But we have to keep in mind. Police are very corrupt, not all of them, but police brutality isn't a secret. I'm sure there not just going to put the addicts and the mentally sick in there. Possibly the mother who had to work late, in these cases its just not fair. I'd rather there be spikes outside of businesses, then putting people in jail. Only because I don't trust the judgement of legal authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
In my area you are evicted (homeless) in less then one day but getting help from the lovely government takes weeks and often months IF you get it at all. I know this first hand. This economy/recession has destroyed peoples lives like no other I have lived through in my 49 years. We are no longer talking exclusively about addicts or mentally challenged people that are homeless. Please consider this.
:(
 
Also, these laws against homeless, if like Jolene said, the city has a great area of homeless shelters, I can see why the law is there.

But in cases like my city, there is not many shelters available, and the rules are extreme, as well as sometimes not taking people in because of racial things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.