• Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Don’t worry the states are working on that as fast as they can. They’re making it a civil fine to “camp” in the wrong spot. Then you also get relocated to a shelter that has a limit on what you can bring in, including a ban on animals. If you resist at any point you end up in prison. So you have to just take losing your only companion and half of your belongings in stride. Also though, if you go to prison you lose all of your stuff. So they release you thirty days later (in the blue states) and your penniless, your dog has hopefully been adopted by someone else, and you have no clothes to survive extreme weather or any other property you need to function. So you can either die in the middle of the night to cold weather or take up that drug dealer on his offer of employment. Which ends up with a larger prison sentence down the road.

      The fact that people don’t see this cycle is infuriating to me. All they see is a sidewalk that doesn’t have tents anymore and they cheer. They don’t care that they’ve permanently destroyed the lives of everyone who lived there.

      • pbbananaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        There’s plenty of shelter space but you can’t do drugs there so people don’t go. But hey I guess you can use as much as you want in prison!

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No there isn’t actually. The recent SCOTUS case was literally repealing a past ruling that you couldn’t do what I described above, until there was enough shelter space for all the homeless in your city/county/state.

          So that’s why enforcement suddenly got juiced. They no longer need a bed available to fuck your shit up.

        • DempstersBox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You have no idea what you’re talking about.

          I’ve been homeless, and staying the fuck away from the shelters is how you stay safe.

          I spent one night in one once, and promptly went back to looking for hidden little spots where no one would be able to see me.

          Unless you are the crustiest of old homebums, shelters are where your shit gets stolen and you get stabbed if you make a fuss. Or raped.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s pretty cool how the richest nation in the history of the world can’t take care of people. /s

  • Dearth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    If every church in America housed 2.5 unhoused people the crisis would be solved overnight.

    Who am i kidding though, American churches don’t exist to help people they exist to tax tithe people

    • Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      When I feed the poor, I’m called a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I’m called a communist.

      The quote is by a priest from South America. I think about that alot when I think about church.

    • BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      To be fair, a lot of small community churches or other religious shelters seem to do a lot more than anyone else about the problem.

      • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Debatable.

        I work for a church. We do a LOT for the community. Free lunches under the bridge. Park clean ups every season. After school programs for kids.

        But in no way are we even close to doing as much good as actual organized programs that have real leadership and get funding.

    • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Churches are a social hate group. I love faith, especially when you have to do the spiritual work yourself, but organized faith corrupts the mind and soul.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Definitely a gross under count of the amount of homeless people. I’d imagine due to the government only counting occupied beds in shelters, the homeless they can physically count on one day, and not the number of incarcerated homeless. The amount is three times higher!

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That’s not really how it works, the census bureau is extremely thorough - they send people into encampments regularly, work with homeless charities of all kinds, etc. These counts are estimates unless it’s a federal census year (when they absolutely do count every individual person that they possibly can), but they’re not going to be wildly inaccurate.

      The much bigger issue is that these numbers appear to be limited to city limits or greater city area, and that’s where the discrepancy is gonna show up. Most homeless people dont live in cities, and camps are often established on conveniently unincorporated land so they dont have to be counted. Bureaucratic bastardry at its finest.

    • Gypsyhermit123@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Housing should he a necessity of life. Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to own homes. Limit individuals to 5.

      If corporations want to own “homes” then they can build an apartment complex.

      • Surp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        2 months ago

        Id say even max two houses. No one needs more than one anyways. The second can be for the rich assholes that need vacation homes.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That or limit it to being outside a certain radius, so you can have your house in the city and a second property out in the woods for the weekend as long as it’s, for example, 50 miles away or more and then if you want a third property it needs to be at least 50 miles away from the other two and so on. Make it impractical enough that second properties are only cottages, not rental units in the same city.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Why do you think I’m joking? People should be allowed to own something out of town for the weekend if they want but they’ll think about it twice if they can’t own both a rental unit and their main house in the same city, in the end it will force them to live in their rental unit along with the people renting from them, forcing them to actually care for their property.

              They won’t want to own a shit load of properties either because maintaining then will be too impractical as none of them are close to one another.

              • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                It sounded kinda like: Let’s make people sell the properties they rent out so that wealthy people can buy vacation homes.

                The idea is guaranteed to make homelessness worse, so it seems natural that someone might mock it.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Or control the type of ownership based on the number of doors. 1 to 4 doors > private ownership. 5 to 8 doors > corporation or cooperatives. 9 doors or more > cooperatives/non profit/State corporation.

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Which they are already doing everywhere in my area. I’d say we should also limit their ownership of apartment complexes. Though that’s a tougher problem to solve.

          • jaybone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            SF Bay Area, East bay. Everything is apartments. Seems like all new developments are apartments, not houses. And obviously those will be owned by corporations.

      • Voytrekk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        I was confused by the title at first too. It should probably be “US is on track to set a new record for homelessness with over 650K people living on the streets”.

  • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’ll get worse, so don’t go making any bets or anything. I know being an optimist is cool and all, but seriously.

  • needanke@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    So like 1 in 50 500 pll is homeless? That’s crazy. Ther is not even a significant crisis or war directly affecting the US.

    Edit: I can’t read

    Edit II : OK, reading was fine (on the first go) I just did my math with 1million = 100* thousand … I am tired and have a cold, please excuse my many fumbles in this comment xD.

    • Throw_away_migrator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think you’re off by a factor of 10. 650k out of 330 million is about 1 in 500. It’s still way too many people, don’t get me wrong, just wanted to clarify.