We already built more than enough houses. The problem is that bank and landlords profits contribute to economic growth, the mandate of capitalism. Housing the homeless would contribute far more to economic growth. But, it’d take more than four years to see the results.
So no. We can’t house them. The need to suffer because otherwise capitalism is threatened.
And we could still fund a facility and staff to house and treat them and it would be cheaper than the current emergency services and courts costs. It would also be more humane and prevent massive encampments from forming.
They dont want to stay though. You have to realize that some people just dont think the way others think. Call it mental illness, call it mental differences, call it whatever you want. But some people are just not compatible with homes.
That’s probably the case for some but not the vast majority. I’m sure there’s plenty who would like an opportunity to get back on their feet, speaking from past experience, some are just mentally ill and need mental health help to get back and to those who just prefer the streets they can go back.
I’ve had this idea for some kind of concrete hut type of structure for those types of homeless people to use, that way it’s easily cleaned out. It would just be a way to keep them out of the rain and give them a safe spot. Maybe add a wooden bench type of platform to give them a spot off the ground. You could place them in out of the way areas, along with a bathroom/shower building. Basically an official homeless camp. Just pay homeless people as janitors to keep things tidy.
Fuck this guy. Instead of trying to hide them you could try helping them, would go a lot farther than destroying their tents and handful of belongings they have bcz you don’t like to look at it.
So do you support mandated drug treatment programs? I’m all for tax money being used for these programs, but some of these people need to be forced to go through them.
The mayor’s pronouns are she/her. But I agree with your point, and so do a very great number of San Francisco residents. The current/upcoming mayoral election is being predictably pushed as a big fight over law and order issues by big-money organizations (a lot of the money coming from silicon valley, outside of SF) and also by corporate-owned local media. The mayor is cynically playing to that tune in her uphill battle to get reelected. As if that weren’t bad enough she had to springboard this off of a cruel Supreme court decision at a time when her constituents are mostly disgusted with the court.
People don’t remember it anymore, but Bob used to do standup. Most of it was one-sided conversations. The driving instructor routine was the most famous, but I like the opener to that same album (The Button-Down Mind of Bob Newhart) about ad execs trying to punch up Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address before he gives the speech more-
He’ll drop out with a medical condition just like how he’ll announce Israel has crossed his red line.
His physician will also conveniently fail to find anything wrong with him just like the state department failed to find evidence of war crimes in Gaza.
The FCC said it "voted to end exorbitant phone and video call rates that have burdened incarcerated people and their families for decades. Under the new rules, the cost of a 15-minute phone call will drop to $0.90 from as much as $11.35 in large jails and, in small jails, to $1.35 from $12.10."
The new rules are expected to take effect in January 2025 for all prisons and for jails with at least 1,000 incarcerated people. The rate caps would take effect in smaller jails in April 2025.
If this doesn't get reversed somehow, this is going to be such a monumental, positive change for so many families. It's nice to read about a win sometimes.
Funnily enough, we do have an amendment allowing it, though it does not prohibit state governments from regulating it. All it would take is a simple bill of congress to end the requirement that states set a 21+ law. en.wikipedia.org/…/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_…
Edit: oops this was meant to be a reply to the other comment
No. Supposedly they raised the age to 21 because of drunk driving teens, though I’m not sure what effect it had. In my opinion, the better option regardless is to introduce teens to how to use alcohol responsibly and safely, rather than prohibit until it’s too late.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.