More hostile architecture

[Scooter]

Do they imagine anyone is fooled that this was about enhancing accessibility?

They have cut the available seating in half in order to stick it to homeless people.

I'm sure those who came up with this brainwave are all good Christians.

[Joe Guy]

Maybe that bench is designed for two homeless disabled sleeping dwarfs.

[Bicycle Bill]

Why must architecture and infrastructure be 'friendly' or accommodating to the homeless?
Since when is it society's duty to provide a modern-day 'hobo's jungle' for today's version of the Depression-era panhandlers and freeloaders, no matter what the circumstances are that got them to that point?

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

I'm not suggesting that anyone should lay mattresses all over public parks. But it's moronic to intentionally damage public infrastructure to the detriment of EVERYONE who could use it, in order to discourage its use by someone who MIGHT use it in a way you don't like.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I have once been in circumstances in which I had to spend the night on a park bench. London, 1967, on my way to see a girlfriend, missed the last train, no money for a hotel. I was 17, she was 16. May or June so it wasn't freezing. I tried to spend the night at the (train) station but the fuzz chucked us out at about 12 when they closed the doors. I still remember the low rise 'hipster' jeans I had and in which I thought I looked pretty damn cool.

And BB a park bench is far from 'friendly' or 'accomodating' but there is absolutely no need to make it impossible especially, as Scooter points out, in some pseudo guise of pandering to disabled access.

[Burning Petard]

So just what the heck IS that construction in the pic at the head of this thread? I grew up with a father with limited mobility. Used two canes, then a wheel chair for all his adult life. I remember the many times that two friends carried him into church. There were no wheelchair curb cuts or handicapped parking or public restrooms with wider doors or grab handles.

I cannot imagine just what that seatless area in the middle is supposed to aid.

snailgate.

[Scooter]

It's not intended to aid anyone, that's the point. No one in a wheelchair is going to back themselves into that space, which would force them to sit forward from any companion sitting beside them. Anyone in a wheelchair could have easily positioned themselves on one side or the other of the bench. Disabled people are being used as a prop in order to stick it to the homeless. It's despicable.

[Bicycle Bill]

It's not intended to aid anyone, that's the point. No one in a wheelchair is going to back themselves into that space, which would force them to sit forward from any companion sitting beside them. Anyone in a wheelchair could have easily positioned themselves on one side or the other of the bench. Disabled people are being used as a prop in order to stick it to the homeless. It's despicable.

I'll agree with you on that one, Scooter ... that was my thought entirely as well.   Although I'm sure you'll agree that other architecture or infrastructure, such as picnic tables with part of the bench missing to allow the wheelchair-bound person to roll right up to the table, is an appropriate solution and not a poorly-disguised attempt to "stick it to the homeless".

But now let me show you my viewpoint.   In my hometown of roughly 50K, we've been dealing a significant number of homeless people or other vagrants who occupy parks all day, hang around in parking ramps, fill the shelters at the Salvation Army and elsewhere, are first in line at the 'warming shelters' which the city opens during the winter months, and lately have been constructing makeshift shelters with tents, pallets, and whatever they can get their hands on.   At one time the city designated a section of one of the community parks along the riverfront as a 'safe space' where they could form their little encampments and even went to the point of providing a source of potable water, regular rubbish pickup, and placing port-a-potties and yes, even sharps receptacles in the area. They used this free campground for over a year until criminal activity, litter, sanitation, and other activities demanded that something be done about it.   And that doesn't even take into account the fact that hardly anybody else used the park after they turned it over for this purpose ... after all, who wants to go relax or picnic at a place filled with a bunch of people smoking dope, day-drinking, panhandling, and generally living in squalor?

Once they DID roust them from this park (at significant cost and effort in cleanup, removing things like pallets, shopping carts, and all sorts of debris and litter — they even had to replace roughly a foot of topsoil due to contamination) these unemployable, unhoused, unsavory unfortunates went elsewhere and have been a traveling tent show moving from one place to another ever since — along one of the bike trails through the marsh that separates the north side of town from the south side; a parcel of land that had at one time been an oil tank farm that was cleared, cleaned, and rehabbed, and is currently being turned into a riverside housing development; and pretty much anywhere else where they could set up their little tent city out of direct public view.

Finally the city passed an ordinance banning ALL camping on property within the city limits — and of course there's a certain faction who, like Scooter, is more concerned with the welfare of a few hundred ne'er-do-wells than anything else that are now clutching their hands, claiming that the city is too unfeeling and uncaring of someone in such desperate straits, and that something MUST be done.   To which I reply, why?

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

Homeless people are unsavory ne’er-do-wells.

Black people are porch monkeys.

Etc.

[Bicycle Bill]

Homeless people are unsavory ne’er-do-wells.

Black people are porch monkeys.

Etc.

Are you saying that ALL homeless people are fine, upstanding citizens who just fell into hard times due to no fault of their own?   Are you saying that there is no drug addiction, alcoholism, or criminal history among them?   Are you saying you'd invite randomly invite any one of them into your home for dinner and a night's stay, or — if they'd even accept the offer of a job — hire some of them?
Go ahead — back-paddle yourself out of that.

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

" these unemployable, unhoused, unsavory unfortunates went elsewhere and have been a traveling tent show moving from one place to another ever since"

OK. what is the solution? I think just killing them is not very strongly recommended. What are some of the other options? In my community it is mostly out of sight, out of mind. Some people give money to panhandlers on major intersections. Some people actively try to make connections with them and offer group homes for those who have had military service. Some provide more than 'warming stations. (of course they are the first to fill into warming stations. I thought that was exactly who they were for.) There are privately own houses where those in that group at the top of this post are invited to come in, shower, run their stuff though a washer and dryer, Get something to eat and just talk if they want to. On there other hand, there are also those who put out food and water for feral cats.

snailgate

[datsunaholic]

I hear (mostly liberal) people say that we need to show the homeless people compassion.

I don't see how letting people sleep on the streets in compassionate. That's why there are shelters, But many of these folks refuse shelter because shelters have rules, and they don't want to follow the rules.


Some churches have set up tent cities with sanitation, power, water, etc. - but again, some folks won't go there because there are rules.


They want to smoke fentanyl or shoot up heroin or whatever mind-numbing substances they can get their hands on in order to escape the reality that is life. They'd rather live in a tent or a dilapidated RV than follow the rules shelters have.

Since they can't get a job with that sort of addiction, they only way they get money to pay the dealers is via theft. There are growing sections of the city that no longer have any sort of grocery stores or drug stores (I mean like Rite Aid or Walgreens) because the shoplifting is so rampant. There are open-air markets in the CID in Seattle where they set up tables and sell stolen merchandise right on the street.

Others refuse shelters because they can't bring their dogs or their sex offender boyfriends into the shelter with them.

The problem is they destroy everything wherever they go. The parks become toxic minefields of needles, broken glass, excrement, and trash. The businesses around them shut down because customers are driven away, the employees get accosted just trying to get in to work. So the buildings go vacant, boarded up, covered in graffiti, eventually squatters get in, trash the place, steal all the copper wiring and plumbing, then the buildings end up burned to the ground by "campfires".

Now, I realize some of this is mental illness. Since mental health funding is practically nonexistent that's a problem that has a partial solution. But it would only work if funded AND people use it. And liberals seem to think that it should be voluntary.

That's where I disagree. Mental health and drug addiction treatment should be fully funded- but people also shouldn't be allowed to refuse treatment if that is making them unhoused. The drug addicted homeless almost always resort to crime to fuel their addiction, so refusing treatment when arrested for other crimes should mean instant forced detox in a jail cell.

[Big RR]

You honestly think that forced detox is all that is needed? Absent the support and counseling, many (probably most) people just get out and start again. Addiction is much more complicated than just locking people up and getting them off the drug (or alcohol or whatever). Sadly, easy solutions do not work.

[Sue U]

I agree with BigRR. This is a complex social and public health problem with many moving parts for which there are no quick, easy, cheap or one-size-fits-all solutions. There are a variety of reasons and combinations of reasons that people end up homeless, and significant differences between short(-ish)-term and chronic homelessness, not to mention the children of parents without housing, and their needs are individual to their circumstances. But a first step is to provide safe, secure and permanent housing, or at least secure and consistent transitional housing that will lead to permanent housing, not just shelters or encampments. A more stable environment allows for better success addressing other needs, like mental health issues, drug/alcohol abuse, other chronic illness/disability, education, employment, childcare/schooling, domestic violence, etc. Also critical to success is connection with family and social networks, and integration into the larger community. While the goal should be self-sufficiency, social services and community supports may be required for extended periods for some individuals. Some studies indicate a universal basic income could go a long way to reducing homelessness, and may be far less expensive than other public services approaches.

[datsunaholic]

You honestly think that forced detox is all that is needed? Absent the support and counseling, many (probably most) people just get out and start again. Addiction is much more complicated than just locking people up and getting them off the drug (or alcohol or whatever). Sadly, easy solutions do not work.

No, I don't think forced detox is all that's needed. Making it voluntary doesn't work either.

Just that they need to stay locked up while they undergo detox and counseling until they either give up the addiction or die of old age. Catch and release doesn't work either. Giving them places to shoot up doesn't work. Letting them live on the street doesn't work.

Right now the only thing that stops most of these addicts from committing crimes is them dying. That's not a solution either, but that's what we are doing.

Unfortunately the way I see most liberal mindset is, "there's nothing we can do, we just have to live with it". By folks that do not have to live with it every day. The city council persons aren't the ones getting their cars stolen, their houses and places of business robbed, having to walk over piles of vomit and excrement on their way to work. They live in nice houses and apartments in parts of the city where the homeless addicts don't congregate. The addicts congregate in the industrial districts, decaying retail cores, parks, underpasses, and basically anywhere that the folks that live and work can't afford to force them out of.



So the whole point of the hostile architecture is to discourage people from sleeping there, or in the larger cases from camping there. It's not a solution, it doesn't fix the problem, it just moves it around. But deep down, most people don't care where the homeless go except "away". They might not say it out loud, but that's what they're thinking. Hostile architecture is a physical manifestation of that.

Other folks deal with it by leaving, moving out of the city. Taking their businesses with them.

Again, how is "letting them be" being compassionate? It's helping no one. The only ones this situation helps is the drug traffickers.

I know, it's not very compassionate of me to think that. If there's a better way I'd like to hear it, because life has made me far less empathetic as time goes on.


Transitional Housing: That works for some people. But first they have to accept it, and they still have to play by the rules. Several cities around Seattle have tried converting hotels into transitional housing, but most have been shut down mostly due to lack of budget. In some cases the buildings became uninhabitable quickly when tenants started destroying the rooms, ripping out the plumbing, smoking fentanyl in the rooms making them toxic. That's a problem. But in every case, the amount of crime surrounding the transitional housing complex went up, just like the crime surrounding public housing complexes is higher than areas far away from them. Even with fenced off, gated access the neighbors complained because the drug dealers were just hanging out within quick walking distance. So then people in the neighborhoods sued to have the transitional facilities shut down, and they sue to prevent halfway houses from being built. A lot of NIMBYs, but again- do YOU want one of those halfway houses next door?

I have known people that have ended up out on the street, living in dilapidated RVs or in their cars. I would never let any of them near my home again. I made that mistake once. That one is in prison for life now, which is where he belongs. The others would steal whatever they could or bring their "friends" who would. All of them once held good jobs but let drugs take over their lives.

One ended up murdering his elderly parents when they wouldn't support his cocaine habit. He had been an auto mechanic. When he was clean he was one of the most helpful people around. When he was binging he was a monster. He's in prison now.

One snorted and drank her entire paycheck until she became unemployable. She was a union electrician. Her husband got clean and left, she stole her son's paychecks which nearly put him on the street, she eventually lost her house to foreclosure, moved into an old RV with another guy who had lost his family due to alcoholism, and died there.

One got addicted to pain pills, couldn't hold a job because she was "disabled", burned all the bridges with friends whom she was crashing on couches with and stealing from their medicine cabinets, "borrowing" money she never paid back to buy cigarettes. Even her Mom wouldn't let her stay anymore, so she ended up living in her car. Eventually the car became undriveable, got impounded, she then found another one to live in. I had the misfortune to run across her a few months back on the job. I didn't recognize her, but she recognized me. Well, sort of, she thought I was my brother. She takes a perverse pride in how many places she's ended up homeless. She won't live much longer; she's only 45 but has cancer that she believes she can cure "with positive thoughts". And pain pills.

Those are the worst examples. I've known others that have gotten close, but their families stuck with them and in at least one case had her institutionalized until she got back on the correct regimen to treat Bipolar disorder (vs her insistence that smoking pot would fix it). But again, she wouldn't voluntarily accept treatment because when she was in manic mode she thought everything was OK, and when she was in depression mode she would either self-harm or try anything to get back into manic mode. She will never be able to function independently, because left to her own devices she goes off her meds. And there are millions of people out there that are the same way. They need help, but they cannot be left to seek it themselves. They have to be forced into it against their will.

I swear, some people don't understand how far some mentally ill people or addicts will go to avoid getting help.

Making it easier for them to keep doing the same destructive things is not helping them. It makes it worse, for everyone.

[Burning Petard]

Yes they commit crimes. A church pastor in Independence, Mo, that I know got into trouble with her parishioners because there was a bunch of 'those people' living near the KC Chiefs arena. They would travel across the church yard and even actually HANG THEIR WET CLOTHES WHICH THEY SOME HOW WASHED, ON THE FENCE AT THE BACK OF THE CHURCH TO DRY.

Oh the horror!

"Making it easier for them to keep doing the same destructive things is not helping them. It makes it worse, for everyone" Isn't that the American way?
We expend much time and resources to make it easier to drive SUVs or dressed up trucks, with one occupant, more and more miles on expensively maintained stretches of highway. That is only the first example that comes to my mind.

snailgate.

[Jarlaxle]

Then by all means-invite them to turn YOUR property into their campsite/toilet/garbage pit/shooting gallery/medical waste disposal site.