Californian homeowners did this to themselves.
Oh, housing should be a luxury for the rich only? Then stop complaining about homelessness. That’s what happens when something becomes exclusive: less people have it. You asked for this because you wanted to be feel rich.
What’s next? If you’re not a member of an exclusive country club you’re a criminal?
the maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry
Homeless
Living in RVs
Okay I lived in an RV for like a year and while there are certainly some downsides I’m pretty comfortable calling it a home. Like, how is that homeless, you have a bedroom!
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.
They’re stealing that parking area from poor self-driving taxi startups!
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.”
Issue is where you park it, if you don't have permission to park it where it is that's trespassing.
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.
A toothbrush is personal property not private property. I am a big believer in personal property but fuck private property. If you're using it it's personal. If you're holding onto it to try to extract monetary value out of it it's private.
Counterpoint: Everyone should just share Gavin Newsom's house. When he wakes up and sees the length of the toothbrush line, hopefully he'll reconsider
ever showing his face in publicsome policiesThat's not the worst short term solution, but commandeering hotels is pretty quick too.
Either San Fran or LA had some project to convert a bunch of abandoned motels into apartments for homeless people. They blew like 50 mil on it and I think they've yet to open a single unit because corruption and scummy contractors are so that bad in this shithole of a country. Hence why actually providing people with permanent housing is sadly gonna take a while in this county.
Your apartment and your toothbrush are personal property, not private property. Theirs a distinction between the two.
After the revolution, Gavin Newsom will be expropriated. The person. He could be used as a cutting board or something.
I've never been more glad to have left the malignant tumor known as Silicon Valley far behind.
Cali Gov Gavin Newsom: It's illegal to be homeless
SF Mayor London Breed: And it's about $200/day to the impound lot if you're not quite homeless enough yet
https://subium.com/profile/criminalerin.bsky.social/post/3l4mjk3ro5j25
