Maybe fix the homelessness with home-MORE-ness.
Govt: Nah! We need to push them out of sight with a loud sound, fences and “no homeless signs”.
Theres an ad campaign just waiting to be built around this play on words 😄
You have to think about property values! Won’t anybody think of the poor investors!
It was quite dystopian.
But as a regular commuter through there I’ve seen a couple of examples of shit behaviour.
When cycling to work I’ve had a shopping trolley pushed in front of me deliberately at the last second followed by laughter when I nearly stacked it from swerving.
I’ve seen bottles thrown at people on scooters.
Not sure what the answer is. Maybe just switch it on at peak commuter hours?
The answer is probably a homeless shelter.
Problem is people like OP is referring don’t stay at shelters long as they generally require you don’t drink/do drugs/keep your area clean. A good portion of the homeless population aren’t just “down on their luck” they’re long term homeless/unemployed due to undiagnosed mental illness and substance dependence. There’s also a subset of them who are frequently belligerent so you’d need staff able to work around people like this, pay them adequately for doing so and pay for security. It’s usually not that simple an issue to address as anyone who’s been around homeless areas can tell you.
Don’t look up statistics on people getting raped in your shithole country’s homeless concentration camps
Ah yes, it’s difficult so let’s not start to deal with the issue.
The homeless don’t do this in every city, so it can’t only be the issue of mental health, every city would be like that if that were true. Why are your people going further than other places? Maybe because they don’t have access to the help they need….?
The problem is the homeless absolutely do need a place to stay and help, but people like you with this viewpoint aren’t going to let them get the help they need.
That is not what they said
Removed by mod
Ok but you’re still attacking a point they didn’t make.
Someone said the answer was homeless shelters. The person you’re attacking said “homeless shelters aren’t enough, you need more”. They did not say “build anti-homeless structures instead of shelters”
Shelters solve the problem for many but don’t do anything to help the type of person causing trouble. That’s all they’re saying.
Just wanted to say these replies in my absence were appreciated, cheers.
Shelters solve the problem for many but don’t do anything to help the type of person causing trouble. That’s all they’re saying.
That isn’t true at all. If there’s shelters, the other issues would be dealt with by the police, like non-homeless. The fact that people are making a distinction at all is entirely the issue, and what I’ve pointed out. And thank you for proving my point by being one of those people.
I’m attacking the fact that they’re stigmatizing homeless like they’re any different than non-homeless. That bias and prejudice is what’s causing these issues. Treat homeless like they are human and they won’t act out anymore than nonhomeless. Shocking eh?
Given the comment chain, I’m sure this isn’t a productive use of my time but just to be clear that is not at all what my comment implies. In Perth, where the article is based for example, there are homeless shelters. My point remains that most if not all of them have rules (hint: especially the ones with Saint in their name or vaguely religious sounding), that some are not able to comply with due to the issues they face. Nor do I think “the homeless do this In every city”, or all of them in any given city for that matter, hence my use of “subset”, “a good portion of” and other specifying terms.
but people like you with this viewpoint aren’t going to let them get the help they need.
Your misinterpretation of my comment aside I could probably wager I’ve spent more time with the homeless and around them than most. While they can always use more services and facilities, the group Im referring to (and that the article/OP references) the problem is largely one of rights i.e. involuntary psychiatric detention or outpatient rehab. The former doesn’t happen until they present an immediate threat to others or themselves and once they get released, they disappear and learn to avoid areas (e.g. shelters) where they’re likely to be sectioned by the police again. The belligerent/trouble making group Im referring to (and I’ll reiterate, used the term subset) have generally fallen through the cracks and have absconded from facilities. Or genuinely do not want to attend them due to not wanting “rules”, knowing they’ll be evicted or in the case of violence, knowing they’re no longer welcome there. A more complex approach is required beyond just “building shelters” as the comment I replied to stated.
No one at any point said that the homeless were the problem…what are you talking about?
[Edit] apparently this somehow got moved to a top level comment but it was a reply to someone accusing someone else of saying the unhoused were the problem, not the lack of services
A City of Perth spokesperson said the devices were installed in response to “ongoing reports” of antisocial and criminal behaviour in the area. They said the devices were not intended to target or deter people experiencing homelessness…
If you believe that “antisocial and criminal behaviour” is actually distinct from “homeless person existing” in the eyes of some people, especially the PTA, then you might be in for a shock.
I think, not 100% sure, the comment you’re replying to was supposed to be within the feisty and at times not respectful thread in this comment section. I think its a response to something the other user said, not what the article said.
That is correct, someone went off on another user for not saying something perfectly enough. My reply is showing as a top level comment now?
Something happened there. I noticed its odd placement the other day. But things had settled down, so i thought I’d just leave it.
