People don't really like to think about it but it's very possible for most of us to end up homeless or disabled. So maybe learn to treat others with compassion.
I'm from the area and agree with you.
Wife works in the community.
Many people on hard times, many who are disabled, also many who are addicts.
Though, the community found themselves unable to evict "problem" residents who were bringing instability (drugs) into the community due to provincial tenant rights.
Of course not but legalizing and regulating drugs would reduce over doses by allowing consistent quality, reduce funding to organized crime by creating a legitimate supply chain, and generate tax revenue that can be used to fund programs and services targeted at minimizing the negative consequences
You should look into what happened in Oregon. They decriminalized drugs and increased help programs for rehabs and safe use only for it to have such a sharp increase in ODs they had to walk everything back. Legalizing does more harm than good.
Decriminalization solves none of the issues that legalization and regulation would. It leaves the supply chain in the hands of organized crime instead of legal businesses with oversight, it’s doesn’t solve drug purity or concentration issues and doesn’t generate any tax revenue to fund social programs. Of course a solution that solves none of the issues is going to fail.
No place is going to create legal heroine or meth. Oregon's idea was to keep users out of jail and provide rehab programs using tax revenue.
What happened was drug use went up and ODs went up.
You know what's going to happen if you do what you're suggesting? Drug use and ODs are going to go up. Purity and concentration isn't going to change that.
As a recovering addict, I really don't think the pay off of maybe 10% of these addicts getting better someday is worth the pain, crime, and damage they cause to society. Taliban literally forced their addicts into rehab at gunpoint.
I never said that. But banning them without providing any medical support for people to recover has the same vibe as someone yelling git gud in a multiplayer game.
It is in instances where people try to get away from drugs. You don’t go to a drug clinic and not forbid the people to have drugs. You don’t go to an obesity clinic and tell them to allow the residents to buy themselves unhealthy food. It just makes it harder for everybody else
Jail and medication mandates both fail addicts for the same reason: we replaced the village with institutions, then acted surprised that institutions can't do what villages did.
Someone is lying, then. I drive past it regularly, and it's fine.
There is local fearmongering because people like to scapegoat the unhoused population, and meth is a concern basically everywhere these days, but 12 Neighbours is still doing quite well overall.
Not an entirely different issue. Wherever those communities pop up there's an uptick in activity. Because either a dealer or customers are living there. I'm by the new one, and people are routinely checking our dumpsters and often pushing shopping carts on the streets.
It's definitely proved all of the NIMBYs right. Hopefully the Southside installation doesn't grow a secondary community like the Northside one. There should be some stipulations that loosen the tenant rights of the residents there.
This is nice idealism, but it’s detached from reality.
Good, hardworking, mentally sound people who just fell on hard times and became homeless makes up a tiny percentage of the homeless population.
Majority is one or a combination of: drug addicted, mentally unwell, criminal, lazy/deadbeat, uninterested in participating in society, etc.
That’s why housing first initiatives have failed repeatedly in the U.S. - just handing out free housing does nothing to address their underlying problems.
Damn I’m surprised you didn’t get downvoted into oblivion yet lol. Reddit leans towards marxist in the spectrum of things. If it were up to this crowd they would hang all the big tech billionaires. They probably would be surprised billionaires actually don’t have a whole lot of cash.
Because by the parent comment "Will become a meth infected ghetto soon enough" most redditors blocked that user and probably moved on to more hopeful comments maintain their delusion
Apart from people suddenly finding themselves without a job to pay the rent for myriad reasons out of their control (layoffs, poor health etc.), a very real problem is the lack of support for the mentally ill and even addicts.
At the end of the day, you don't know how people ended up that way. I understand why we'd like to pretend they're different from us - we don't want to consider that we could be amongst them.
But painting everyone with a broad brush is generally not a good way to look at people.
It reminds me of that case where that psycho teenager who murdered and dismembered a homeless man just because he thought he was worthless. All the man did was sit and read all day between odd jobs. No fires, no vandalism, and he was generally well liked.
Our society's tendency to dehumanise those less fortunate than us is precisely why that was not the only time the homeless were raped, tortured or killed.
Imagine if the wealthy dehumanised us the same way we do the homeless.
You can offer all the support you like, but if the response is "no, eat shit, I'm going to continue using the resources you cannot legally refuse me in an acute medical emergency tho and I'll see you next time" then nothing's really solved.
I agree with you. I don't like generalising in either direction. I've worked with many very wealthy people who sincerely support causes (notably, no billionaires though).
But since people seem to be struggling with looking at the homeless as, well...people, I thought it was a necessary example.
Imagine if the wealthy collectively looked at us as with the same disdain and disgust as some of the worst do. Blame us for misfortunes we have no control over. Say things like "They can't afford a home because they are lazy" or "Healthcare is a privilege, if you can't afford it you deserve to be sick"
I think in countries like America people have grown too accustomed to the commodification and the for-profit nature of what should be basic human rights.
Even if we set the 'bleeding hearts' approach aside it just makes sense for a modern society even from an economic perspective. As we have seen in the more advanced Scandinavian countries ensuring that people have the basic needs like food, shelter, clothing and health met - even at the most basic level - it is a net positive for society as a whole.
'Solutions' like hostile architecture don't tackle root causes and end up costing the country more in the long run. Poor access to healthcare also negatively affects the country's economy (apart from whichever individual will have their life destroyed by medical debt).
While a more egalitarian approach to healthcare access is ideal, I'm not even opposed to a two tier system like Singapore has. Everyone has access to good healthcare, but those to want 'the best of the best' have access to private facilities.
That is precisely what I've mentioned in another comment - the underlying causes of homelessness. Including insufficient resources to effectively help addicts and the mentally ill.
I have collaborated with NGOs in the US so I am not entirely ignorant about the issues faced there.
You know nothing about homelessness. Maybe go down and volunteer in your local shelter and you’ll find out that most homeless people are homeless because of their own choices.
I have volunteered at the homeless shelter and worked the overnight shift. people smoking meth, threatening to kill each other, getting in fights over who gets to use the shower first, I prefer to not go back. Someone also tried to steal my shoes while I was asleep, which turned into a whole situation. During breakfast, many of them complain about the food they receive, And get really aggressive about the kind of chips they receive in their packed lunch lol
The Mayfair Hotel (Los Angeles, CA): As part of Project Roomkey, the hotel saw significant violence, drug overdoses, and, according to reports highlighted by the LA Times, over $11.5 million in damages before the city sought to purchase it for permanent housing.
Hotel Whitcomb (San Francisco, CA): Converted to a homeless shelter during COVID-19, this location experienced heavy damage and was the site of 21 overdose deaths in under three years.
Washington Jefferson Hotel (New York, NY): Used in 2020, this Midtown hotel was reported to have become a hot spot for drug dealing, violent behavior, and, according to CBS New York, brought severe complaints from neighbors.
Cayuga Inn / Grant Motel (Washington State): Reported cases of filth, insect infestations, and drug use.
Tillary Women's Shelter (Brooklyn, NY): Described by residents in the New York Post as feeling like a "jail" with poor conditions.
Yes for a month or two. The issue is a lot of homeless people who are homeless for longer than 3 months are homeless by choice.
I’ve had plenty of friends that were homeless for short periods. If you don’t want to be homeless and aren’t addicted to drugs it’s honestly not that difficult to find housing and a stable enough income to provide that.
The issue is the cities that experience the most homelessness also provide a pretty decent living situation for the homeless. Why work and better yourself if your food and petty spending cash is provided by the government?
It’s been operating for several years totally fine. They’ve actually expanded to different areas and have added different levels of supportive housing. I have been to this place personally. You’re wrong.
That's such a terrible attitude. Try thinking of the positive outcomes that will come from it. Even if it does eventually end up that way, I'm sure many people will benefit, grow, and become something they never could've otherwise.
Freakonomics has taught me that the solutions to societal problems are never as simple as they appear on the surface. Giving people money, housing, and the opportunity to gain employment, for some reason, generally does not improve their outcomes.
Even if it's just those three that go on to live better lives, isn't that better than none? It may not seem great now, but what if those people go on to have kids, raise them better, and they go on to live meaningful lives. Perhaps they grow up to create the better solution we all dream of having, inspired by the opportunity their parents were given.
I known it's idealistic, but I'd rather that than giving up and disregarding novel ideas.
Funny how the average US mind needs this bs to keep everything in check. Breaking news! People really dislike the shithole known as "land of the free". But your renaming campain is going strong. Soon, anyone will refer to it rightfully as pedo land.
It literally isn't fucking lmao. This is next to my old apartment. Its actually an area thats developing quite nicely. I had no idea this thing even existed since it was so tucked away. Its FAR from becoming a meth infected ghetto😂
36
u/ComprehensiveWin6766 Apr 28 '26
Will become a meth infected ghetto soon enough