By the 2020s, the American government – reacting to serious problems of homelessness and unemployment – created special Sanctuary Districts in most major cities.
By the 2020s, the American government – reacting to serious problems of homelessness and unemployment – created special Sanctuary Districts in most major cities.
The Bell Riots start on Sunday. Stay safe out there!
<Anyone coming from /c/all please note this is a joke post for an in universe Star Trek event. Remain Calm.>
You're viewing a single thread.
Meanwhile, in the real 2024, a lot of homeless people would probably prefer being put into a sanctuary district than having their very existence made illegal and cops either clearing them out or arresting them wherever they went.
When the actual future dystopia is worse than the one that writers came up with.
Kevin Spacey is a monster and I hate him like Weinstein, but he has one of the most salient moments on Colbert’s Late Show from eight years ago (after the Trump joke):
Shit man they had universal healthcare in Star Trek's 2024. In Star Trek's 2024 the tech billionaire decided to help the homeless. We're doing worse in the real world than what Star Trek depicted as being near the absolute nadir of human society.
In reality, getting them to accept services and help is the #1 obstacle to getting them services and help.
Most homeless shelters in San Francisco dont allow people to take their belongings in with them.
Attitudes towards the homeless are highly backwards - demanding sobriety as a condition for aid, when in reality drugs are used as a way to escape the pain of trauma and homelessness. SF residents voted and passed Proposition F, cementing the idea that feeling smugness over the homeless is more important than actually trying to help them escape poverty.
Most shelters do in fact allow people to bring their belongings with them (within reason). Some even provide storage space, and the city provides a free self-storage facility.
Prop F addresses CAAP (cash welfare), not housing. You don't have to be receiving CAAP to qualify for housing assistance, and you don't have to be homeless to qualify for CAAP.
SF has been struggling with a chronic homelessness problem for decades. Offering voluntary services does not work. To put in in Trek terms, the problem isn't the gimmes, it's the ghosts and dims. Gimmes are easy to help because they can act on their own behalf and in their own best interests. They accept services and don't end up being chronically homeless. The ghosts and the dims, on the other hand, are a different story.
Is sweeping their encampments an ideal solution? No, far from it. But what else is there for us to do? Let them languish on the streets? Honestly, what would you have us do?
Housing First is the correct way to reduce homelessness. The main cause of homelessness is being priced out of the housing market, because the vast majority of housing in America is entirely privatized. Plus most public housing in America is not done nor funded well, until our European counterparts.
Drug addiction is a symptom of late-stage homelessness, not a cause. The cause is almost always the private housing market pricing people out of affording even rent. In the US, housing is first and foremost an investment, not a necessity.
Numerous studies show that housing first participants experience higher levels of housing retention and use fewer emergency and criminal justice services, which produces cost savings in emergency department use, inpatient hospitalizations, and criminal justice system use.
https://www.pdx.edu/homelessness/housing-first
This has worked famously in Finland
Housing First has been the policy in San Francisco since 2008, and state-wide since 2016.
No they haven't. Shelters and Housing Lotterys are not Housing First. Housing First is free housing, like studio apartments, where homeless people can get stability in order to recover from addiction and join the job market.
https://sfplanning.org/housing Housing for All is going in the right direction, but Housing First is specifically important for addressing and reducing homeless.
Welfare and Institutions Code 8255.
But it's beside the point if the problem is with getting them to accept services in the first place.
Oh I see that now. Yeah you're right that California has started Housing First. I looked into it but I couldn't find any data about the results of the people who took part, only the overall data of the state of California which doesn't really tell me how well the program itself is in California. The major difference between it done on a State level compared to on a national level like Finland is the amount of financial support and scope of implementation. Looking into it, I also noticed Finland has extensive access to many services for people that are utilizing Housing First, which wasn't the case in California. Another major aspect is that Finland has significantly better access to affordable housing, especially with the amount of public housing available, bit also in the private market.
The root cause of homelessness has not been addressed in America like it has in Finland, so the amount of people becoming homeless is still increasing here in America.
And that is because a large amount of time, those services and help come with conditions they can't accept.
Take shelters for example. If you're a homeless woman, you could stay in a shelter (until they kicked you out) but you probably have a dog to protect you since you're a woman on the streets. The shelter would make you abandon the dog.
I actually work in the SF housing industry, and worked at a housing site in SF that was converted to permanent supportive housing during COVID. In that case, barely 30% of the people even showed up to their intake appointments.
What were the conditions in order to get an appointment? Who was offered appointments? Who was informed about them?
Certification of homeless status from the city (already acquired if they were referred to us) and proof of income (if any).
I think we both can come up with a great many reasons why someone wouldn't want such a certification.
I can't think of any.
this is exactly like saying homeless people would rather go to prison than be homeless.
Not even close to saying that. I think you need to look at what SCOTUS recently ruled about what cities can do with homeless people. Because sanctuary districts would be kinder.
you cant leave a sanctuary district, thats a prison, why would anybody want to go there? theres three main ways you end up there, you are too poor, your caught sleeping on the streets, or you have mental problems and cant afford the healthcare.
inside the sanctuarys you have no guarantee for housing, no way to get a job, increased gang activity, more mentally unstable people, food shortages, how is that any better than living on the streets in our world?
the rulings from the scotus is the first step to sanctuary districts my friend, and if you think that locking poor people in cages is kind, then you have a funny definition of kindness.
I don't think you understand the difference between "kinder" and "kindness."
Spitting in someone's face is kinder than stabbing them in the throat. Does that mean spitting in their face is kindness?
if you say something is kinder, then it must pass the bar of being kind first. I would say none of the things being described, (spitting , stabbing, and locking people away) counts as kind in the first place
No, that's not how language works.
You can say that flies are smarter than bacteria despite neither being smart.
You can say that Bob is uglier than Dave when neither Bob nor Dave are ugly.
And I've already made it clear to you that I was not suggesting either was kind, so I'm not sure why you're arguing this with me as if I were.
you can say bob is uglier than Dave sure, but if it's not true then it means nothing, similarly if you call something unkind kind, then that also means nothing. you said that sanctuary districts would be kinder, in order to be kinder they must first be kind, so yes you did say sanctuary districts are kind.
Again- I made it clear what I meant. You're just harassing me at this point because you have decided I meant something I didn't mean due to the way I said it even when you've been told otherwise. Maybe stop doing that.
my intent is not to harrass you, if you agree that prison for homeless people is bad, then my only point of contention was the use of the language, and i hope you can see why i interpreted what you said the way i did.
i spent like 6 years homeless myself, i dont particularly like the idea that anybody could be put into a sanctuary district for being homeless. most homeless people i personally know would be very opposed to the idea of being placed in a sanctuary district, because they have interacted with social welfare programs before and know that they are ineffective at best, and actively harmful at worst, and the sanctuary district we see in the show is a prime example of that
the people who get placed there did nothing wrong, and are now prisoners in some fucked up fend for yourself cage. there were promises of being placed in a job, that the sanctuary disctricts are there to help the people in them. that is the exact opposite of what they do, its only a way to sweep the problem under the rug
you say some may prefer to be put into a sanctuary district than be arrested for being homeless, i dont see a difference between the two whatsoever.
I think his point was that since everyday survival on the streets is so hostile to homeless people, that prison can be seen as more humane as they get food, water, and shelter in prison while they may not on the streets.
That isn't an argument for jailing homeless people; its that our criminalization of homelessness needs to stop and we need to instead provide pathways for rehabilitation such as Housing First. Also tackling the root-cause of homelessness that is the private housing market where shelter is an investment instead of a human right, by providing genuinely good public housing
But I can see why it came off that way for someone with your background. Most people are still hostile to homeless people and blame them for the state of the cities, despite them being the major victims of the policies that are creating and profiting off that disparity. I'm glad to hear you were able to make it out of homelessness, despite America's efforts to make it as hard as possible
Is -5 greater than -10? Yes it is.