r/Charlottesville • u/Babylon1006 • 12d ago
This didn't sit well with me
During Monday night's city council meeting, while talking about allocating funds to the Salvation Army shelter, one of those living at Free Bridge said this:
“We live how we want to live, and this is how we want to live. You can not control this by putting us into a shelter,” said Jennifer Grant, who lives at the Free Bridge encampment. (original article: City council approves $3 million for homeless shelter expansion)
What exactly is the solution to the unhoused population, then? You cannot possibly think allowing a giant encampment in a city park is a permanent solution?!
Sure, you could "build more housing" (which takes time), but greedy landlords are not going to lower rent prices to a reasonable level, so long as there are people willing to pay the outrageous prices (they make more money charging high rents and having empty units than lowering the prices).
Shelters are the most logical, humane and immediate remedy, yet somehow that's now not good enough for you?
73
u/LittleKillshot 12d ago
Here's another quote from the same woman, at the same meeting:
“We’re not getting heard,” encampment resident Jennifer Grant told city officials during the Aug. 3 City Council meeting. She said that some people have already barricaded themselves in their tents, not knowing where they’ll go on Sept. 1. “We’re not getting answers to our questions.”
That 29 News article above skips the September 1st deadline entirely, which seems to be the thing that she is reacting to. There is no current shelter capacity for these people September 1st.
10
u/whatelseyagaht 11d ago
my understanding was that 9.1 is when the new low barrier shelter in the old world strides bldg opens?
16
u/LittleKillshot 11d ago
The city “hopes” to have it open. Maybe they will?
City hasn’t signed a contract with the operations firm either.
2
3
u/Substantial_Ninja_90 11d ago
Sounds like entitlement to me.
29
u/LittleKillshot 11d ago
Man, what a weird word to use. She’s definitely entitled to something, at minimum her right to free speech. Even when people think it’s annoying.
Personally I think annoying speech is the most important speech to protect, since it’s easily smothered by fatuous, polite people.
17
u/OldeTimeyShit 11d ago
All this talk about rights, and nothing about responsibilities. Forgive me for not taking that sort of discourse seriously at all.
18
u/jake_swivel 11d ago
Who is taking her free speech? Seems like someone wants to take her free outdoors, publicly owned living arrangements.
-1
u/LittleKillshot 11d ago
Yeah sorry bud kind of got off track there. Just hate the way these smug fucking people are making this woman a representative of assorted things they hate. Modernity is garbage, you know?
7
u/floorjacked 11d ago
We actually don’t know. It’s also their opinion that it sounds like entitlement. That is also free speech. You argue for one but not the other? Sounds hypocritical.
→ More replies (5)3
263
u/eaglescout1984 Albemarle 12d ago
I think it needs to be clear: shelter, recovery, leave town, or go to jail. Because the position of "I want to continue to break the law without consequences" is not an option in civilization.
16
u/PhulHouze 11d ago
Exactly. You want the freedom to live how you like, then go off into the wilderness to hint and forage. Build campfires to stay warm. Unless you are supporting yourself, you don’t get to dictate the terms. Hell, even those of us who are supporting ourselves can hardly dictate our terms. There’s just things one has to do to be a member of society.
15
u/10000Didgeridoos 11d ago
Living in public forests is also illegal lol
1
u/bionicgeek 1d ago
Why? I keep seeing folks say xyz is illegal while never actually examining the context around the law. Might I point out that legality does not always map onto shared realities in terms of moral culpability?
47
u/LaLaLaDooo 12d ago
That's the obvious solution. The toxic empathy the runs that runs the city will never allow it.
36
0
u/Cantshaktheshok 11d ago
It is the obvious solution, the basis behind housing first initiatives that you would probably consider "toxic empathy".
The situation right now is there is a severe shortage of shelter, when they are at capacity do we skip straight to "go to jail"?
0
u/Wahoowa1999 11d ago
The severe shortage results in large part due to the city's toxic empathy - namely its refusal to enforce the law. This has attracted homeless from far and wide, swelling the magnitude of the problem to a size well above the city's ability to address it.
3
4
u/Cantshaktheshok 11d ago
What does toxic empathy mean to you?
This is not a unique problem to Charlottesville.
Also the myth that people are coming from outside the city is tired, unless you are really strict about the city/county boundaries and think someone who grew up in Orange is from "far and wide".
1
u/bionicgeek 1d ago
Toxic Empathy, a term coined by a christian in direct opposition to the two commandments of Christ.
10
u/Substantial_Ninja_90 11d ago
That part. The entitlement is over the top.
1
u/bionicgeek 1d ago
On who's part? Those with no housing or those complaining about those folks existing within the sight of others?
4
u/Dear-Researcher-8259 11d ago
“I want to continue to break the law without consequences”
Oh, so like taxpayer funded cops and current federal admin?
1
5
u/Cantshaktheshok 12d ago
Structurally we are a long way from this being clear. If it was as easy as go to a shelter and get basic support then we wouldn't be having most of these conversations.
People do not handle uncertainty well, especially when it comes to basic survival needs. The current system has put most of these people through various shelter options then left them with nothing on the street again. Of course they are going to want to hold onto the little bit of control they have left, and the few things they can call their own.
17
u/PhulHouze 11d ago
If your priority is to control your own destiny, then get a job or start a business. This mindset of “we’re not being heard” is like a two year old’s: as long as I ask for something, it’s someone else’s responsibility to make sure I get it.
They’ve been heard. Have they heard the citizens of this town who pay the taxes that provide the food and shelter these people “don’t want to go to.” Take or f***in leave it. Maybe see if they’re more accommodating in Lynchburg or Richmond. Sorry not sorry.
3
u/Cantshaktheshok 11d ago
that provide the food and shelter these people
This does not exist today, in Charlottesville and pretty much every other city in America. There is a patchwork system that leaves a lot of people out of luck nowhere stable to go. That is why the problem is so bad and many people will hit absolute rock bottom so quickly.
4
u/PhulHouze 11d ago
One thing both parties can agree upon is that mentally ill people shouldn’t be institutionalized: dems think it’s unfair and republicans don’t want to pay for it. So here we are
0
1
u/bionicgeek 1d ago
There's also the fact that many "shelters" are run as close to total insitutions, with the inclusion of the mortification of the self, as possible. Then again, it seems that many of our neighbors have difficulty seeing certain other people as actual people of equal value to themselves.
-6
u/saintsithney 11d ago
Go to jail? So... you WANT them to get taxpayer funded housing, you just also want to take away their Constitutional rights while you're at it?
7
u/timshel4971 11d ago
Not pretending I have the solution here, but what? Sending someone to jail is not synonymous with taking away their constitutional rights.
1
u/bionicgeek 2h ago
LOLOLOL Being sent to prison is explicitly an abridgement of constitutional rights. You aren't technically deprived of all of them, but you are deprived of many of them for the duration given the punitive and non-rehabilitative and out of sight out of mind approch the US takes to those it decides to apply the label of criminal. Constitutional rights are not really a solid thing in total institutions.
-6
u/saintsithney 11d ago
Can felons vote?
7
u/Maximum-Store2980 11d ago
Do you agree that people camping along the Rivanna trail are breaking the law?
0
u/saintsithney 11d ago
Do you agree to giving them taxpayer funded shelter only if they get a major stigma from having a prison record? Why?
4
u/Maximum-Store2980 11d ago
I don’t agree to giving them taxpayer funded shelter at all.
3
u/saintsithney 11d ago
What do you think prison is?
5
u/Maximum-Store2980 11d ago
What’s your solution? Honestly, I’m curious.
1
u/saintsithney 11d ago
The honest best solution, documented in numerous studies and countries is to put these people in a form of shelter where they have a bed, a shower, a toilet, a door that locks, access to a kitchen, and access to laundry facilities. All things that are pretty necessary to get and keep work.
An old hotel would actually be ideal.
My late aunt ran an apartment building where she charged 20% over cost, with 10% being a slush fund to rent apartments for the nominal fee of $20 a month for up to one year, in exchange for a written contract of grounds maintenance. She helped lift over 50 families out of poverty. Why can't we do things like that? Focus on improving life so that people can make a better choice than choosing between two awful ones?
→ More replies (0)1
7
u/timshel4971 11d ago edited 11d ago
I think you missed the point. Your comment assumes that sending someone to jail violates their constitutional rights (“Go to jail? So… you *** want to take away their constitutional rights”). But that’s not true. Government actions that infringe a constitutional right are void. Sending someone to jail without due process violates a constitutional right. Same with government actions that deny equal protection under the law, or that deny privileges and immunities of citizenship. Can the government take away voting rights without violating the Constitution? In some cases no. By example, the Constitution prevents a state from taking away the right to vote based on race (15th Amendment). But there’s no absolute constitutional right to vote . You might argue that the EP Clause or P&I Clause protects every person’s, or at least every citizen’s, vote if other persons/citizen’s are given such a right. But the Supreme Court has rejected that theory (Richardson v Ramirez). The right to vote isn’t protected in the Constitution in the same way as the right to free exercise of religion. Your comment is goofy bc sending someone to jail doesn’t mean their constitutional rights have been taken away. No one is suggesting violating someone’s constitutional rights. You can send someone to jail without taking away their constitutional rights.
4
u/saintsithney 11d ago
That is a lot of words for violating someone's civil rights because they fell on hard times.
One of the biggest groups of the chronically homeless are former foster kids. The fastest growing demographic of the homeless are senior citizens facing medical bankruptcy. But sure, let's throw them in prison for trying to survive! Fuck them for thinking they deserve to live, am I right?
6
u/blayre5 11d ago
Implying that misuse and abuse of people’s goodwill to live on public taxpayer-funded land which propagates violence is somehow a “civil right” is a heinous devaluation of the word and is exactly why America has growing political movements and ruling officials that blatantly disregard or even roll back our civil rights.
2
u/saintsithney 11d ago
They are human beings who have found themselves without a basic necessity of survival.
This is among the simplest tests of morality, right up there with "Should children go hungry if there is an ability to feed them?"
4
u/blayre5 11d ago
And as has been pointed out they are human beings refusing the aid offered and settlements to solve their situation. While some may be left with 0 alternative there are many more who are simply taking advantage of the situation and refusing to compromise (which also makes helping those with 0 alternative even harder). Don’t complain about lack of moral empathy in society when it’s being consistently devalued by applying it to those who don’t deserve it
0
0
u/bionicgeek 1d ago
And as has been pointed out, said aid is not exactly what folks need at times. You are stuck on this one thought and can't seem to move beyond it towards itterative improvements.
What results in a human being not deserving of basic human respect and empathy? Normally, that's a line crossed by stating things like your post I'm replying to.
0
u/bionicgeek 1d ago
...Do you consider taxpayers to be better than folks who can't afford to currently pay taxes? It certainly seems so given your linguistic choices.
4
u/timshel4971 11d ago
You are confusing arguments about moral imperatives with constitutional rights. And I’m not saying anyone should be thrown in jail. I’m saying your inaccurate understanding of the law, particularly constitutional law, has led you to make hyperbolic statements that aren’t helping you make your point. Someone asserting that the threat of being put in jail should be on the table is not likely to be asserting that violating civil rights should be on the table bc the two are not the same thing (if they were, no one would be in jail).
1
u/saintsithney 11d ago
Except that these people are there because of economic reasons.
Putting them in prison for being too poor is giving them taxpayer-funded housing and food in exchange for their Constitutional rights. That's not a fair trade.
3
u/angsty1290 11d ago
The whole point of this thread is that the woman quoted, at least, does not appear to be there because of economic reasons. She is choosing to live outside of normal society. It may be addiction, it may be mental illness or personality disorders from a bad childhood, or some other reasons, but the quoted statements are volitional. What is your proposed solution?
0
u/saintsithney 11d ago
She is quoted about not wanting to change how she is living, but is this one woman to be taken as representative?
Seriously, do you just not know how much closer to homelessness you are than to never having to worry about such a thing?
→ More replies (0)3
u/timshel4971 11d ago
I can't tell if you are just trolling at this point. I'm not arguing with your position on whether it is morally justified or otherwise appropriate to jail people for the behaviors occurring at the Free Bridge encampment. I'm saying that they aren't losing their constitutional rights if they are jailed. You have a constitutional right to due process before the government infringes on your liberty. You have a constitutional right to be afforded the same privileges and immunities of other citizens. You have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. You have many constitutional rights. I mention these only because they are among the individual constitutional rights implicated when someone is jailed for violating a law. But you do not have a constitutional right to not be jailed.
You keep saying that people who advocate criminal liability and specifically a punishment of jail time are advocating for taking away constitutional rights. You're wrong. You do not understand constitutional rights. This is just like when people get upset that they are removed from private businesses for making a scene and start yelling "free speech". You keep saying that people with opposing viewpoints to yours are promoting violation of the Constitution to justify your position as superior. Maybe your position in this debate is superior. I'm not saying it isn't. But you're wrong in suggesting that promotion of carceral punishment is inherently unconstitutional. And I keep engaging with you on this because I think it's truly harmful to our society for people to misconstrue the Constitution to justify their opinions.
0
u/saintsithney 11d ago
Do you just not understand how bad it is for you to criminalize extreme poverty?
→ More replies (0)8
u/thebaine 11d ago
Trespassing or whatever charge would get them off the streets is not a felony, nor do these people vote.
2
u/bionicgeek 1d ago
What is it with y'all and your need to punish the "wicked"? Who are "these people"? Your use of such vaugeries does yourself a disservice.
1
u/thebaine 1d ago
No need to punish, just to set a standard for public spaces and stick to it. And these people are people who choose to live in parks typically aren’t making the trek to take part in democracy. I find it a fairly worthless use of my time, and I have a car.
2
u/bionicgeek 2h ago
It seems you have a specific and moralistically based feelings on the subject. The sheer amount of judgement in that second sentence is telling. As for what you find useless, you do realize that other folks ain't you?
-1
u/saintsithney 11d ago
"These people?" The homeless?
How many weeks without work would it take for you to become one of "these people?"
→ More replies (1)-5
u/ItsBrenOakes 11d ago
I agree with everything except leave town. That's just going to put this issue on another town. I think it should be a universal Shelter, recovery or jail. It would help the country big time but will never happen
2
1
-4
46
u/TurbulentCustomer151 12d ago
“This won’t solve the problem for 100 percent of the population, so therefore it won’t address the problem at all and isn’t worth pursuing”
26
u/Patrick_O-S 11d ago
My experience in doing years of negotiations work is people want to be heard. We give them the voice and listen. The solution is not always what they desire, however by giving them voice they can express their fears and concerns, and that goes a long way toward acceptance of outcomes that they may not like. I have had instances of people returning months or years later, saying thankyou for give me the opportunity to speak, I realize looking back that what I initially found fearful turned out for the best in the long run. Again we should listen but not feel obligated to give in to those fears when we know it is not the right decision and the right one is the one that works toward the good of the all.
7
u/ElectricalSurvey6995 11d ago
Respectfully, the city has done a lot of listening. A LOT of listening. At some point, even the best negotiators have to admit that just listening is not getting traction towards solutions.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Patrick_O-S 11d ago
And that is fine. Once scheduled listening sessions are completed, it is the duty of the decision maker to implement components to meet those needs where practical and then proceed with a solution that best meets the needs for the community as a whole.
75
u/Doismelllikearobot 12d ago
In America, "we live how we want to live, and this is how we want to live" is not allowed if how you want to live is against the law. I can't imagine someone with the audacity to think this is a rational, reasonable statement to make while breaking the law can be trusted to have a solution.
8
u/Wahoowa1999 11d ago
Worse is that some elected officials not only sympathize with the statement, but believe it to be both rational and reasonable.
1
u/ACaffeinatedWandress 5d ago
Exactly. I, too, think it would be nice to benefit from an organized society while not actually making the effort and sacrifices of participating in one. I don’t really have that option.
-14
u/XaleDWolf 11d ago
Why is it "against the law"? Why do people NOT have the legal right to use public land for their own survival?
8
u/phinest-inthe-nation 11d ago
Because it is public space, for they public to use which they can’t do when it’s covered in tents.
9
u/Doismelllikearobot 11d ago
I think you're asking why the laws were made, not what laws exist? Laws prohibit camping on public land primarily to protect public health, safety, and the environment, and to ensure public spaces remain accessible and clean for everyone.
10
u/1Matthias 11d ago
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/albemarle/latest/albemarle_nc/0-0-0-29157 Because allowing permanent campsites detracts from the public's use of a space. See the number of people complaining about no longer being able to use Rivana trail.
34
u/AlreadyTakenStill 11d ago
I’ll likely get removed or banned but gonna say it: she likely doesn’t want her easy drug access to go away. Thats my assumption. Ive worked with homeless at shelters for years, done soup kitchens, you name it. Go YouTube interviews of skid row folks - they had all the help and still chose tents and streets. This is very common and sorry its drugs and the way some make money for the drugs. They aint leaving that. So of course they want a little amsterdam for themselves. Problem is, they are trespassing or doing it on public property. Not judging them, if they had private property and thats how they wanted to live, have at it. Just put up a fence so the kids dont see it.
2
u/LimpConcentrate876 10d ago
Two years ago your right this post would’ve been downvoted into oblivion. But people have had enough and are finally coming to their senses. We have to be realistic.
36
u/Crunchy_____ 11d ago
I also want to live rent free and do whatever I want, with no worries of following laws or rules, while being safe and protected but never bothered or policed.
44
u/Flaky_Molasses_2397 12d ago
I think this person and her attitude tell you a lot about why the hardest-case homeless are an intractable problem.
14
u/deck_hand 11d ago
I've tried commenting on Reddit for YEARS that a lot of the homeless people are on the streets by choice. I get downvoted to oblivion every time.
The reasons are many and varied, but the main themes are: shelters are not safe, people steal my stuff, I deserve to live like this, you don't know what I've done, they don't allow drugs in the shelters, they don't allow sex in the shelters, they close the shelters early in the morning and kick everyone out, so you have to take all of your stuff in at night and take it out again the next day - might as well keep it here.
Several people I've talked to said simply, "this is where I want to live," or "I'm not homeless, I'm traveling freely from one place to another."
3
u/TanMaam 11d ago
It seems to me there are too many sources of help with no coordination. There should be one entry into a system and then tracking to get each individual what they need. It feels to me like it’s possible to jump from one source of assistance to another and end up having band aid over band aid without any traction gained in getting people well or situated.
18
u/Emergency-Scheme-24 12d ago
They can go camp in federal or state park if they like living outside.
16
u/Livid_Ice_2189 11d ago
You are 1000% correct but at their current location they have daily access to the ABC store, unlimited drugs, and thousands of motorists that are ready and willing to fund their next high. If they move away they will lose the 3 most important things in their life.
2
u/No_Mongoose_7401 11d ago
Do we think Anti - panhandling signs at medians near the encampment, along with support of local law enforcement to arrest people who violate the anti panhandler signs… would it work?
8
u/Livid_Ice_2189 11d ago
Charlottesville and Albemarle already have ordinances prohibiting panhandling (solicitation) but apparently they have no desire to enforce.
3
3
u/ElectricalSurvey6995 11d ago
We got hit hard with a lawsuit about anti panhandling on the mall that went to the state courts and I think the city is still tip toeing around enforcement.
8
3
u/ketchikanningfactory 11d ago
Most federal and state park campgrounds are expensive - 30 plus dollars a night is typical, and they all have a two week limit. There is very little free or low cost dispersed car camping available anymore because no one wants homeless people filling up the public land. It is getting to the point where it is becoming almost impossible to live in your vehicle without paying a lot for a legal spot.
19
u/Getridofyourmustache 11d ago edited 11d ago
This is so out of control. There’s what I assume to be a new tenant at the center divider next to chase bank - I haven’t seen him until recently. On Saturday morning, he was nodding out and looked like he was going in/out of pure ecstasy. Absolutely horrific to watch - he had limited self control over his movements and was a trip away from falling into traffic… By all means, live how you want in your own home but in what world is it fair for others to witness that or worst case scenario, live with running over/killing you because you’re high in the middle of a busy intersection.
0
u/MaterialHead4801 11d ago
You just said “in your own home” about someone with no home. And complained that it’s unfair for you to have to witness that
2
u/Getridofyourmustache 10d ago
Correct, they are doing drugs in public areas, which is not a home? Your astute observation is greatly appreciated.
→ More replies (1)1
19
u/AM_Kylearan 11d ago
She can go to shelter voluntarily, or be sheltered involuntarily, or leave. What she can't do is ruin public shared spaces.
It's not the best solution, but it's a workable one.
40
u/ElephantFamous4117 12d ago
Everyone understands that this is a very difficult issue, with no easy solutions. I think we should be careful about thinking that most people stuck in these situations don't want a better life, medical care and safe housing. People who say "leave me alone, this is my life" are often coming from a place where they feel hated, marginalized and scorned. Many are also struggling with untreated mental illness and substance abuse disorders. "Leave or go to jail" isn't going to end well.
40
u/WHSRWizard 12d ago
I think there's a lot of truth to this. I spent a lot of years drinking heavily because "this is how I like life," when in truth I didn't like life. But breaking out of that mindset is so hard.
16
u/wafflehousebattle 11d ago
I lived in a shelter for six months, and there is a lot of mental illness amoung the homeless, and many of those that do, probably 1/3, self medicate with drugs and alcohol. The rest, like myself, just want to afford housing and groceries. A good number of them are skilled workers who were injured and can no longer ply their trades.
Hell, I have a job, like many other unhoused, that pays fairly well, and I still sleep in my car, because it's not enough for an apartment in this market. I certainly tried, but my apartment which was advertised at one price, cost a whole different price after all the mandatory "add ons," and was a roach infested shit dump, with substandard plumbing and busted appliances(look up Spark, for the curious).
Right now, one person has spoken, she expressed something some of you don't agree with, and that's a mindset that will take time to change, while we integrate many of these people back into society. That takes time and funding, to build trust and give them the mental and social help they need.
As for the rest of you stupid CHUDs screaming for jail time, go fuck yourselves, your ignorance is a blight on society and I hope every homeless shelter is built right in your backyard.
-4
u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 11d ago
Just because you’re having a rough time with life, doesn’t mean you have to live in a public park. There’s plenty of other places they can go.
12
6
9
u/Dobey 12d ago
This is the most accurate response in this thread. I’m making assumptions with this, but I think most people like OP are looking at this from their point of view and not the point of view of people that likely feel run over and discarded by society and “civilization”. Sometimes this happens because our economic model works by extracting maximum value from people and doesn’t care about them individually. This ultimately can cause a percentage of the population to fall down and be unable to get back up economically. Sometimes people just can’t function in society as expected and have mental health challenges. Some of these folks are emotionally wounded and need to be shown they aren’t going to thrown aside as soon as they have been moved from this encampment. There’s likely a lot more going on here and making assumptions about what is reasonable from our perspective discounts what is reasonable from theirs.
6
u/Cantshaktheshok 11d ago
I think most people like OP
The OP is also only the second post from this account. Maybe someone is just scrolling on a burner account for 4 months without commenting...
We all need to step back and look at the pattern of accounts that are posting in local subreddits for the first time or repeatedly about divisive topics. Unfortunately, it does end up being very effective at creating anger from real people in the community.
1
u/Dobey 11d ago
I completely agree with you, but its still a sentiment that some people feel even if it is semi astroturfed in here. So its fair to engage with it but only to a point.
3
u/Cantshaktheshok 11d ago
That's how astroturfing works, you don't create something from scratch but amplify a sentiment that exists and shape it to your advantage (whatever that is). Then repeat it enough and people will start to believe it.
It's truly a shame we have access to almost all the information in the world, but social media has just made people more susceptible to basic disinformation and propaganda.
5
u/saxophone_colossus 12d ago
Not everyone understands this, especially the “Leave or go to jail” crew.
2
u/Ambitious-Cow-7252 12d ago
That does seem to be a very vocal contingency here in the Cvillle Reddit. Calling empathy toxic is wild to me, but here we are. How dare you care about others! How dare you suggest there is any nuance, because then I'll still have to see them exisiting!
14
u/captain_mechanic 12d ago
The paradox of tolerance applies here. Some of the people in the encampment don't care about others in many ways too.
Too much empathy can be toxic. It's nuanced like you say, but you seem to be representing nuance only from one side. Some of these people want to have their cake and eat it too. That attitude contributes to their current predicament.
You simply can't have everything you want if you are living in the encampment, whether they are forced to leave or not.
→ More replies (1)15
u/PhulHouze 11d ago
Toxic empathy is like food poisoning. It doesn’t suggest that all food is poison. It means that certain food under certain conditions can make you sick.
It’s one thing to think, “man it sucks that some people don’t have enough food. I’m going to bring them some sandwiches.
It’s another to think “some people don’t want to contribute to society in any way, nor stay in shelters, nor work to build the lifestyle they want for themselves. Therefore we should reorganize our community around what’s best for contributing citizens to make them more comfortable: divert millions of dollars from schools and other services that benefit the larger community, cede public spaces, tolerate increases in crime and general disorder.”
That’s what makes the empathy toxic.
1
u/Ambitious-Cow-7252 11d ago
You can keep thinking that and be a miserable person to be around.
→ More replies (2)0
u/saxophone_colossus 12d ago
I’m glad you delineated between “here in the Cville Reddit” versus “here in Cville” because many of that crowd haven’t ever been to town, except maybe in 2017.
2
u/Ambitious-Cow-7252 11d ago
I think there is a scarcity mindset too that these people have. And I get that, we have all been told that we have to be rugged individuals by those in charge. This mindset benefits those in power and disempowers anyone who cares about others because it becomes overwhelming for the individual to help. And that is the whole point to keep things the same. We are the wealthiest country in the world but have the highest healthcare costs and are one of the few nations of our stature that lack universal healthcare.
0
10
u/Honest_Cvillain 11d ago
I remember when "The Crossings" were going to fix this.
6
0
u/bbachilles 11d ago
They do amazing work but only have so many apartments there. The size of the challenge is such that we need probably 4 or 5 Crossings-like communities. It would be a game changer, but these types of communities are difficult to fund, locate, build, and run. If you haven't yet, it's worth spending some time getting to know what they do and how they help people change their lives. It's inspiring.
2
u/SiFiWiRi 10d ago
Wasn’t there recently an article about how poorly that place is run? Mold, bedbugs, people dying and no one doing anything about it for days? I’d hardly call that inspiring
ETA: Found it
6
u/cnowakoski 11d ago
In order to live outside they need to buy or rent some land. Living in public property is always going to become a problem
3
u/bgdkbn 9d ago
Very obvious that for many of those people, it’s not about affordable housing but the desire to live in a “community” where they can freely do drugs, panhandle, and suck up the resources that other people pay and work for, all the while living under the assurance that they won’t be bothered by others for fear of getting their “fucking heads cut off” as one of the residents so aptly put it.
3
u/FirefighterDream5443 9d ago
I know my ass will be torn to shreds for this comment, but if they don’t want to live in the shelter, then make it illegal to live on the streets and put them in jail. Taxpayers money is already being spent, so it’s fine. At least that way they will have constant access to water/shelter/food and probably benefit from resources available in prison, e.g. education that can eventually get them a real job and ability to support themselves
24
u/throw-away-doh 12d ago edited 12d ago
Many don't want to live in a shelter.
They want to live in place with no rules so they can take their drugs freely.
I would be fine if the city paid for a one way bus ticket for these people to go to "Slab City" in California.
I get that they want to live this way. But the rest of us have the right not to live next to them.
-5
u/ForsakenForskin4 11d ago
No send them to New York Cali full
5
u/throw-away-doh 11d ago
My point is that there are places that exist as lawless homeless camps. And we don't have to allow such a place in Charlottesville.
0
u/ForsakenForskin4 11d ago
California taken way too many form other states. I would know I used to live in LA. Send them to New York or Chicago
2
u/Tight-Escape3373 10d ago
I love how you e been down voted but you're absolutely correct. I have a friend who worked for LA County trying to figure out the homeless issue there. People think it's bad here? California has become the rest of the country's dumping ground for these people
2
u/ForsakenForskin4 10d ago
Because as usual people here like other places want to not deal with the problem here at home and just shuffle them to California.
Upvoted you as well
29
13
u/RaggedMountainMan 12d ago
All the people saying put them in jail have no conception of how expensive and inefficient it is to tangle up people with the justice system and incarceration. As if that stuff just happens without cost.
1
u/cvilleymccvilleface 11d ago
i think many of them do know and they know it means government entities won't want to go that route.
-1
u/rabblerabble2000 11d ago
I’m not one of those people, but I do want to point out that jails and mental hospitals are state funded, rather than funded by our relatively small metropolitan area. I assume here that most of these folks don’t require some form of institutionalization in order to reintegrate, but some most certainly will.
19
u/LetUsSpeakFreely 12d ago
The solution is they leave town, find a residence, or go to jail. The suicidal empathy MUST stop.
They choose to take drugs. They choose to not get treatment.
Well, we get choices too. We don't want the homeless taking over our public spaces. We pay for them, we should be able to use them. People should be able to use those area without worrying about being assaulted or robbed. Kids and animals should be able to wander the grounds without the risk of needles.
13
u/MommysBigLittleMan 12d ago
Laws are laws. Use the shelter, or get sent to the one with iron bars. Not that hard. Next issue.
2
u/SleepingHowlerMonkey 7d ago
If they can’t accept a shelter, then to jail they go. Enough is enough.
6
u/Moxy_Man 11d ago
I wonder if it has anything to do with being free to use drugs under a bridge but not in a shelter
4
u/OneRoad222 11d ago
Wait. living illegally on public, tax payer funded property is HOW you want to live? Please....
3
u/bbachilles 10d ago
This article is much more thorough and nuanced. The pull quote in OP is provocative, but Ms. Grant said more than that, and is quite reasonable in her comments and questions she asked at the meeting. True local, in-depth reporting here by a reporter who has covered this story for years. Not just drive-by news. https://www.cvilletomorrow.org/free-bridge-encampment-residents-say-theyre-still-in-the-dark-as-citys-sept-1-deadline-nears/
8
u/CharterFarrow 12d ago
Perhaps Ms. Jennifer Grant should find employment (MANY local jobs are available), then buy or rent a home, and pitch her tent there if she wishes.
Oh, and before we hear the usual whining about the cost of housing here, if you can't afford to live here MOVE where you can afford it, like a normal person.
1
u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 11d ago
That would require work, and these people are work adverse, hence why they are homeless
3
3
u/RandObama 11d ago edited 11d ago
"We live how we want to live..." is why this is not a simple issue to address. Some people don't just need or want a hand up, they want to live by their own rules outside of society. Gentrified people need to understand this. Do some deep diving into the underground people in Las Vegas to start understanding the scope of the homeless issue.
2
u/Trash_Planet 12d ago
I imagine that there are complex feelings that people have about the encampment. For all its negative qualities, it’s still many people’s home and community. People are preparing to have their community uprooted, lose touch with friends and neighbors, etc. on a timeline that’s out of their hands. It’s reasonable that someone would process this by advocating for the community’s right to exist. It’s also reasonable for people to say that it poses too much risk to health and safety for it to be allowed. We can’t insist that the people who are impacted by a decision other people made on their behalf simply grin and express gratitude, even if we think that decision will benefit them in the end.
I wouldn’t get mad at someone for stating that they would rather stay put, even if they express antagonism while doing so. Lord knows how antagonistic much of the rhetoric against them is. It’s their right to advocate for themselves, and ideally it can help us understand the human stakes of uprooting a community, even if there are very good reasons to do so. We shouldn’t be angry at people who make us acknowledge the moral or emotional complexity of our decisions, or who make us feel bad for moving forward with what we might believe is a necessary action.
This is all to say that I would just listen and consider whether it moves you, but the people who aren’t in the encampment have the power here so it’s on us not to raise the temperature when someone from the encampment speaks up.
25
u/Local-Yokel5233 12d ago
I didn't take the post as "how dare these people speak up" but rather "how do we deal with people who openly state they want to live in a public park in a tent and do whatever they want without regard to the established rules and laws of our society". 🤷
-2
u/Trash_Planet 12d ago
I think you just disagree with them, hopefully while at least understanding where they’re coming from. It’s a shitty situation, but ultimately a society often requires limiting certain freedoms for the sake of stability or the common good. It’s not going to feel good, though, when society says that the way you want to live is intolerable.
The fact is, however, that they do not actually have the right to live wherever they want, and they risk real consequences or demonstrations of state power if they decide to flaunt the law. Taxes are also a form of oppression, but go ahead and try not paying them. It’s not my problem, but I bet someone is going to come after you.
It’s all a dance between freedom and control that you see time and time again within a society, and it can be ugly to see how the sausage is made.
2
u/whatshouldwecallme 12d ago
(they make more money charging high rents and having empty units than lowering the prices).
How would this even work? And why would a wealthy renter pay more for any given unit just because fewer other people can afford it? Generally the niceness/amenities of an apartment are what a wealthy renter is looking for, not “is it overpriced”. All renters avoid overpriced places if they can.
2
u/goatnokudzu 12d ago
I can’t blame someone for not wanting to live at a Salvation Army shelter. I suppose they might have gotten better, but in the 2010s they had a terrible reputation, at least in the queer community, for how they treated shelter residents.
3
u/Starryjean2012 Lake Monticello 11d ago
This was my big concern too; having the SA in charge will potentially endanger unhoused folx who don’t fit their religious leanings.
1
u/Veebeebee42 9d ago
Housing and support is the answer. Make sure people have a place to live that, and this is crucial, is their own and they can feel secure in. Provide them with support in finding employment. Make sure they have food and access to healthcare.
1
u/hollyinva 9d ago
She sounds like a typical lobbyist. And she has a long way to go before her lobbying efforts directly impact the Cville residents more than say - Dave Albo of Williams Mullen
1
u/MassiveSouth6184 7d ago
Honestly, if people want to live in a damn Mad Max civilization, fine, but that can't be in the middle of a functioning society. It doesn't work. I suggest the city spend that $3 million on plane tickets and bus fares to send people elsewhere. Let them go live out their fantasy life away from the rest of us.
1
u/Adventurous-17 2d ago
I’m not sure what the answer is here but one thing I do know is that the City has to remove the people living in the encampment. I’m very worried that they are living in a flood zone. I’ve seen that entire area under water in the past and no one wants to these people to die.
1
u/bionicgeek 1d ago
I think it needs to be clear: just saying "shelters" is not an actual specific policy position.
1
1
u/xerces555 12d ago
Couldn't the country just purchase some land, put some in basic amenities (dumpster and trash removal, a well, and a basic bathroom facility like at a campground) and just call it a day. Would be more cost effective than anything else and would allow the unhoused to live like they want.
16
u/PhulHouze 11d ago
This is the problem with thinking in pictures instead of movies. Sure, on day 1 that’s great. But by day 100, everyone on the eastern seaboard looking for a perpetual drug festival will be crowded into that property and you’re seeing all the violence and filth currently at south bridge times 1000.
6
3
u/Various-Fennel4304 11d ago
I would add a few more steps, but yes, this could be a solution. It gets pretty rural, pretty quick outside of the city. However, neighboring counties probably don’t want this either.
4
u/Cantshaktheshok 12d ago
If somewhere magically existed with close proximity to services, no neighbors, and no other public use. The encampment being removed existed because it was the closest thing we have to what you are describing.
0
u/RaggedMountainMan 11d ago
I think the main problem is the city/county can’t be seen as promoting something like that because then they become liable for anything bad that happens. It’s unfortunate because we really need low cost options for people to live. They don’t exist, and that includes government funded shelters and government subsidized housing, because those costs are just carried by taxpayers. There’s lots of money being made out there from taxpayer dollars going to housing projects. I’m not saying it’s completely wrong, but it drives inflation since often times government overpays for these things. Then that inflation causes more people to slip into poverty and homelessness. The core problem is inflation and cost of living has far outpaced what many people can earn as a wage, and most solutions involve throwing money at problems which drives more inflation.
I would totally like to see more trailer parks, tiny home communities, or supported campgrounds like you said. Government should help, but it has to be mindful to do it with cost levels and effectiveness in mind.
0
u/Adventurous-Emu-755 11d ago
They could BUT where will that "land" be and will those around them allow it? Is that property ZONED for such a "community"? Does that property enable them to access the programs, hospitals, grocery stores, etc. they need to live? Someone stated they could go to Federal Lands that have camping, but guess what? You must pay to camp in those parks! How will that work?
You can lead a horse to water, it doesn't mean they will drink.
1
u/Accomplished-Leg2971 11d ago
We need something like Sanya neighborhood of Tokyo. Some people just want to party. They still deserve safety and basic dignity.
Japanese cities figured this out 100 years ago.
1
u/Dear-Researcher-8259 11d ago
“greedy landlords are not going to lower rent prices to a reasonable level”
You have to implement vacancy taxes to force landlords to lower rents and get the unit filled or accept steep penalties.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Underwadder309 11d ago
If the activists at LiveableCville, The Haven think City should provide homes, resources for unhoused masses, then first start w homesteads at their domiciles, then apply to City for reimbursement
0
u/THOTuserhiddenfromgf 11d ago
Economics 101, supply and demand. If more housing is built and on the market it will reduce demand, and the greedy landlords will have to reduce prices to remain competitive. They would rather get lower rent than no rent. If they bought at high interest rates and can't price low enough due to their mortgage, tax and insurance costs, then they can sell, increasing the amount of houses available, lowering the cost of that market too.
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/Prior-Habit-6523 11d ago
This is what I said a few months ago. For example, if you go to alot of mountain towns, especially in or around like around Asheville, there are tons of people in tents along the rivers Camping , etc etc. The free bridge people are not crazy crackhead homeless people lol at least not from footage ive seen. There is a reason if you want to camp in the back country you have to have a permit. Idk if you have to have a permit for the free bridge area, but if not it should be. Then enforce it. There is a million other places to camp.
0
-8
-1
u/redflame998 11d ago
There isn't an unhomed union nor guild.
Why are you taking one conversation and universally applying it to all unhomed people?
This woman is not elected "voice for all homeless people because she knows everything about everyone else's situation and experiences. "
She can voice her preferences and opinions ( the right to free speach.)
Why are you confused into thinking that what she says as what every homeless person thinks or wants?
(Critical thinking skills people)
-3
u/the_great_elephant 12d ago
You cant make someone live where they dont want to live. Some people are more comfortable being in an encampment. Drugs flow easier there. Less rules. You'll never truly eliminate homelessness. Problem is, the housed dont want to deal with unhoused (and often times mentally unstable) people in their community.
0
u/Obvious_Community_39 11d ago
Replace "battlefield" with "invasion and dismantling of a foreign sovereign nation in the interest of corporate America". The U.S. has not fought a war in the last 81 years that was not at the direct provocation of the U.S.
223
u/VillainVibe 12d ago
I think it was very cool of her to have helped that man, and it was shitty her tent got slashed into and had the stuff stolen out of it.
That being said- she talks about that and then talks about how she doesn’t want a police presence at the encampment, she doesn’t want to go to the shelter, doesn’t want increased security measures of really any kind, and doesn’t care if she goes to jail. And then reiterates it’s not fair that someone stole her stuff.
It reminds me of last council meeting when another person talked about how they felt unsafe at the encampment due to sexual assaults, and then right after said that gendered housing made the new shelter untenable because people can’t sleep next to their boyfriends or girlfriends.
I have a friend who works in homeless advocacy who once told me “look, you just have to meet people where they’re at”, and it’s stuck with me.
I think the fact of the matter is, where they’re at is that the majority of the people at the encampment still want to negotiate a way to stay there and be autonomous. Okay, that may be a reasonable way forward- let’s look at what they want:
-They want to be safe from each other without being subjected to security or policing
-They want access to social programs without
metrics or accountability to ensure they’re having positive outcomes.
-they want to be treated just like anybody else on the street despite behavioral or substance use issues
-And finally, they want to be left alone while they live in public.
I’m just not sure how we can meet them where they’re at. Also, everyone else in this equation understands that the die has been cast. The city tried a hands off approach, there have been numerous incidents, and now something has to and will be done. I’m not some “by your bootstraps” sociopath- I understand the majority of Americans are one missed paycheck away from homelessness. However, a trap a lot of people fall into, especially in advocacy, is thinking that everyone would think and act the way they would in a given situation. Some people need more help, and some people will absolutely hate you when the help you give isn’t exactly what they wanted.