- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I hate the practice of Hostile Architecture/Anti-Homeless Architecture, just let someone sleep till the sun comes up. As long as they ain’t hurting anyone or the area then, it’s whatever.
yay. inconveniencing people AND making homeless people’s lives worse. Makes sense. /s
“its putting your head in the sand, kicking the can down the road” policy, no intention of alleviating it. probably gives reason for certain politicians to get elected. our region started doing something to the homeless in an area of our city(sweeping leo prescence, especially when world event/conferences are around) and they immediately move near the WFoods where i frequent, and they are robbing it blind(because store policy is not even to approach or give them customer service). when before they were more spread out and congregate in an area, that they dont stray far from causing “less” problems.
A symptom of homelessness being a thing although it’s a quite understandable mitigation too.
Mildly infuriating? This is disgusting shit.
I guess it’s time to put a bench there, get a hammer drill, put some holes in the cement, and bolt that fucker to the ground, and then round the bolts so they can’t take it out.
Hostile infrastructure, intended to heap misery upon the most miserable among us. We punish people who should be helped, and help people who should be punished. What a backwards world.
Somewhere, something changed and money became all, get it all so you can consume. People stopped caring unless money was involved and they were getting it.
Capitalism only cares about money.
Correction. The money must be obtained without morality or ethics… And laws are written to be both be worked around or punished with fines, hence making them an operating expense.
The only crime that is punished is those done by people with limited or no political or economic leverage. This is why burglary and shoplifting is heavily punished but a company bankrupting entire communities is not.
But it wasn’t like this 25 years ago
Ooh, free lock-picking practice!
I don’t think it would be illegal to non-destructively unlock that lock.
- Ex-cop
It’s a master lock, it won’t give you as much practice time as you hope.
Anything is practice. Repetitive behavior hones skills. Experience is experience, good or bad. Maybe the skill is doing in the open quick enough to not draw attention.
I’m aware. If you really want a pedantry fight:
Nothing about my comment implies it would be a long practice session.
Very curious about a hypothetical: You pick the lock and secure it elsewhere on the bench so that it’s not lost and accidentally affix a proper lock keeping the bench in the bench position.
I was not looking for any kind of fight and I actually did suspect you knew. I was just hopping on the opportunity to mock Master Lock, since I know they make some of the worst locks on the market.
Full disclosure: I have zero lock picking skills. I probably couldn’t pick this lock if I tried.
You probably could. They’re really not very hard.
not just the worst, but they somehow manage to release new locks that are worse than their old ones, as well as new locks with positively ancient design flaws that every lock manufacturer absolutely knows about, like not including a rear shield in the core, meaning you can just… stick something in there and open it trivially. i’m talking design flaws from the 1800s and early 1900s. their most secure core is used in a PLASTIC LOTO LOCK and none of their metal locks, for no fucking reason. the incompetence is unbelievable.
Fair enough. My hackles are usually up thanks to how people treat me.
I think it would be a lot more fun though to non-destructively unlock the lock and replace it with another one that looks identical every single day after you free the bench and put it in its upright state, locking it in place.
They’ll think that they’ve got the wrong key every single day. Just keep buying locks and replacing it.
That’s more illegal than I can openly suggest.
I guess this is how English and Spanish work but coming from language where the word “free” is not used in similar manner I find it somewhat funny that here we have “free zone / zona libre” and it means that the bench is locked and so many things are prohibited.
The Spanish is a bit easier since it literally translates to “Zone Free of…” followed by a list of things it’s a zone free from but I agree, since a “drug free zone” and a “gun free zone” mean that there is, ideally according to the sign, no drugs or guns but a “weapons free zone” would mean you’re free to shoot combatants on sight, whereas a “weapon free zone” would mean an area without weapons.
using “something free” to say that thing is prohibited sounds so 1984…
deleted by creator
Why are they so obsessed with making sure the homeless don’t get a basic, involuntary need? Like just shoot them if you are going to be this cruel, and you are going to kill them anyway.
Capitalism requires there to be a threat of what happens if you “don’t work hard enough” or don’t play ball with those in power. Nevermind that most homeless people aren’t that way due to laziness or anything they did wrong, just unlucky situations or medical debt or being laid off at an inconvenient time or something.
It would be far cheaper to our country to have free housing, UBI, universal healthcare and social programs everywhere than what we are doing now, but what we are doing now makes about 1,000 people INSANELY wealthy at the expense of the other 342,000,000 people in the country, so that’s what we keep doing for some stupid reason.
Maybe one day everyone will wake up and stop enabling systems that create this shithole.
There’s about 40 other capitalist countries where losing your job doesn’t end in homelessness and medical debt is not even a thing. And we have universal Healthcare, paid annual leave, paid parental leave, unlimited paid sick leave, unions,…
Basically there’s only one country where all of that doesn’t exist…
Medical debt might not be a thing but losing your home because you lost your job definitely happens in Europe.
Yes, losing your home after losing your job definitely happens in Europe. The difference is that many European countries have stronger safety nets: they may help with rent, provide temporary or social housing, or use Housing First, so unemployment is less likely to end in rough sleeping. They generally won’t simply pay off your mortgage, and the help isn’t guaranteed, but keeping people stably housed can be cheaper in the long run than repeatedly dealing with homelessness. It also makes finding and keeping work much easier. In the UK, for example, eligible people may receive Jobseeker’s Allowance and help with their rent through Universal Credit, or Housing Benefit in certain circumstances.
And yet losing your job can still quiet easily lead to homelessness. “There are capitalist countries where that doesn’t happen” isn’t an argument if it does in fact happen in those capitalist countries. We might have better safety nets, but they are band-aids that only slow the function of capitalism, they don’t solve it’s inherent problems.
The cruelty is the point. They’ll say a homeless person doesn’t deserve a fee hundred bucks a month to get back on their feet, but they’ll spend 100 grand a year per person to make them more miserable. It’s just good job security (and satisfaction) for the police unions.
They spend YOUR money too, possibly making you homeless in the process.
Yeah, they’re just fucking plain sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissistic, egolatrical and evil.
Cruelty is definitely a big part of it but also NIMBYism. If we don’t see the homeless people, we don’t have to think about them and try to find solutions.
they’re still sticking to the trope that the homeless are lazy, uneducated bums; at best they’re what happens to good citizens after falling into addiction.
they all WANT to be there, but we definitely don’t want them!!!
but that narrative should be falling apart as conditions deteriorate…
but you know, american education lol.
“BrO, bUt ThE mErItOcRaCy, ThE uNiVeRsE gIvEs YoU wHaT yOu AcTuAlLy DeSiRe WiThIn ThE dEpThS oF yOuR iNnEr SoUl”
We need societal-level solutions to homelessness. We need housing, free healthcare, free mental healthcare, criminal justice reform, and more. But until we can do that, the reality is, concentrations of the homeless are associated with higher crime, reduced patronage of businesses, and decreased property values.
It super duper sucks, but homelessness is a really difficult problem for cities and property owners they aren’t equipped to address. Since they can’t fix the problem, they instead focus on keeping the problem away.
It’s all so fucked.
This feels like a very US-specific way of framing it. In the UK and much of Europe, many of those “societal-level solutions” already exist to varying degrees: healthcare and mental healthcare free at the point of use, unemployment support, benefits towards rent, social and temporary housing, legal homelessness-prevention duties, and Housing First programmes.
They’re nowhere near perfect. We have social-housing shortages, benefit limits, long healthcare waiting lists and plenty of people who still fall through the gaps. But the response doesn’t have to begin and end with moving homeless people somewhere less visible to protect property values.
Your point that individual businesses and property owners cannot solve homelessness is completely fair. That’s precisely why they should sit behind a publicly funded safety net which helps keep people housed and supports them back into stability, instead of leaving everyone involved to deal with the consequences.
Lemmy lol. Answer is simple. Everyday folks don’t like seein’ them, as they consider them lowlifes. City is doing “something” about it, so city is doing good. There are shelters, so it’s not like these people have no options.
Everyday folk don’t think about shelters being overcrowded, homeless being alcoholics/druggies just to cope with their situation and thus not being able to use shelters, or the fact that I’ve seen software devs, here on lemmy, mention being homeless or being in the past.
Most people are reactive, not proactive. They see dirty homeless person, they feel yucky, they tell said person to gtfo without thinking about the fact that it’s a person in the first place.
Yeah but being proactive is illegal unless you’re part of some organization and making profit somewhere along the way.
By that I mean it’s fucked up in the US, how I cant by a few boxes of frozen burgers, cook them make a bunch of burgers and start handing food out; unless I was part of some organization that somewhere along the way is making money or hype to make sure their other businesses get business.
Yes, I really can’t wrap my way around their way of thinking.
There are people who have such big issues in life, and such bad options, that a bench in a park is their best option for a place to sleep. That is horrible, and something must be done. And politicians think removing their best option is a solution?
If people can show enough compassion to invest in getting these people back on their feet, if you are really just going to ignore them - at least to that. Let them be.
If we’re talking drunk people causing issues, and they need to learn to go home instead - then I’d get it. Not my preferred solution, but I’d get it.
I think everyone CAN get together to make a difference, everyone who cares.
drunk and disorderly is arrestable. This is only for stopping sleeping 100%
And politicians think removing their best option is a solution?
Because it gets them votes. The politicians aren’t the problem, they merely reflect public attitudes.
They cause public attitudes in most cases, so…
What makes you think that the average politician is actually a leader, rather than just a follower who pays attention to polls? That would imply they have a spine, which seems unlikely.
I think some of the politicians really are part of the problem.
Because people are more comfortable letting homeless people starve or freeze to death than they are with shooting them.
Same reason people are happy to buy ham from the grocery store but would feel uncomfortable slitting a pig’s throat.
The bourgeois don’t want to look at the plebians.
Sure, commuters with jobs are the bourgeoisie.
That’s got to be annoying just to lock and unlock a bench probably every day. Also the bench can still be used as a backboard while you sit on the ground.
It doesn’t stop being a chair it’s just hostile architecture
(Not in OP city) There’s a lot of homeless people here and they like to sleep in entranceways and similar things, so you’ll often see gates etc that get closed in front. One business had a open area beside it that homeless people were sleeping in, so they installed rounded spikes on the ground to make the area unusable. Caused a quite a bit of drama with the city.
Mfs be living in pharloom
If you don’t want to see homeless people in your park: HOUSE THEM
Why spend money on housing them when you can instead (i assume) employ someone to keep to anti-homeless benches on schedule and pay consultants extraorbitant fees to help you design anti-homeless parks
Ironically, the guy who has the job of maintaining the equipment and schedule
They literally don’t just make Concentration Camps against the poor and the homeless because that would be too brazen and obvious, I fucking hate them.
Over here entrance to shelters is permitted only to the sober. Its more complicated than that.
And it’s impossible to get a decent night’s sleep outside with all the traffic, pedestrians, noises, cops, etc. unless you self-medicate. If you can’t get a good night’s sleep you go insane.
It’s a lot easier to get sober if you have housing and basic needs covered.
Our town, one shelter they essentially dry out at (at their own pace), one shelter they go through a program that trains them on basic adulting and job skills like paying rent and filling out timesheets. together they make a pretty successful (very low recidivism rate, i.e. back on the street) mutual aid group
deleted by creator
Agree, but also I still think we should House them instead of investing into hostile architecture because its just more sensible
You have to solve your problems before we help you solve your problems. Top notch logic there.
In metro Vancouver area theyve bought old hotels and other buildings and set up barrier free housing. But it doesn’t totally fix it because some, due to mental health, still don’t want housing (or rules that go with housing) and some are destructive and start fires.
Its a super tough problem that needs a root cause fix in early childhood years when kids need a good life.
A former addict/homeless person also mentioned that all the comforts, and safe injection sites, free clean drugs, etc just insentivized them to keep using, since there wasn’t hardship to force change.
Its like a no win situation, right now.
Some people need to hit rock bottom to get the right motivation, others just need a chance to get back on top. We shouldn’t accommodate the former at the expense of the latter.
It’s easier to lock up a bench than build an affordable home.
Cheaper too.
But, it’s probably not the optimal solution. I suppose it’s a step in the right direction. As bad as hostile architecture is, the old way of dealing with the problem was to have cops beat the shit out of homeless or drunk people if they tried to sleep in a place where other people might be offended or annoyed.
To me it doesn’t feel like a step in the right direction, since we could have always had the optimal solution, at any time: no beatings and no hostile architecture.
That might be the optimal solution to you and me, but it isn’t the optimal solution for the rich and powerful. Apparently the average voter hates the sight of homeless people more than they hate hostile architecture too.
Oh, they still do that.
Not with that lock they don’t lol.
You can open a Master Lock with a Master Lock.
