Should people have a right to sleep on city streets?

Which is why I said NO!!!!

 

I think that people are taking your comment, that the streets are "for all to use" as you saying that homeless people should be able to use the streets for living on! To be fair, I can see how they are taking it that way! Perhaps you can too.

 

Is your argument essentially, why in hell should we gift free housing to the most wilfully anti-social and addicted bums, while clean living and hard working people aren't given sufficient welfare too?

 

That could be the most ridiculous and laughable thing that I've ever heard anyone say!

 

And that's not a bad thing that some may be attracted?

 

Earlier you said that, "the most [shelter charities] can do is pass out flyers and pamphlets." What are these flyers and pamphlets?

 

You mean vacant land?

 

Mostly telling them where there at and how to get there.

 

Yeah okay, I figured. I guess one of the problems is how they get to the shelter from where they are. Public transport requires money.

 

Live by the sword Chris, and die by the sword.

 

Any land, actually, but my comment was addressing vacant land since there is so much of it. Much of it is off limits to development, which exacerbates the problem. All the afflictions of overbearing government tend to drive housing and rent prices up, including, and especially rent controls. Isn't that a hoot!

 

Are governments reserving the land for something?

 

It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

 

No. Central Planners 'know' that they are smarter than the people who own the land, so it's just a power move.. Since they are virtually always wrong, they stay in power by doing away with people who dare to point out the flaws in their plans. Confiscating means of defense by the private property owners is a knee jerk reaction common to those who owe their power to a central planned regime.

 

No. My argument is that those who choose to ruin their lives ought not be eligible for assistance. Assistance should be preserved for those who will make use of it to escape poverty as quickly as possible. That's the point of the exercise, after all. To HELP - not to give people an out from work and responsibility.

 

You, those kids who chose to be brought up in. Poverty

 

I'm asking what YOU think!

 

Aren't there some homeless people who "will make use of it to escape poverty as quickly as possible?"

 

So this is private vacant land that they don't allow development on?

 

What would you say?

 

Zoning laws are central planner's tools to tell private property owners what they can build on a given tract.

Eminent Domain is the tool of central planners to steal private property from its owner and either hand it to another favored owner or keep it for the collective.

Here's an example of the latter from the People's Republic of NYC:

Eminent domain abuse has reared its ugly head in East Harlem. As Ginger Adams Otis reports in the New York Daily News, city officials plan to seize a family-owned dry cleaning business and then hand the forcibly vacated land to a wealthy private developer.

Damon Bae, whose parents opened the Fancy Cleaners business after immigrating to the United States from Korea in 1981, told the Daily News that "the city has offered my family about 30 cents on the dollar on the market value for what our three lots are worth—that's not enough to buy anything comparable in East Harlem today….The city's working so hard to meet the developer's timeline; meanwhile, we're trying to stay in business."

https://reason.com/2018/01/11/new-york-city-unleashes-eminent-domain-a

We don't generally deal with the disastrous consequences of central planning in greater US. It runs counter to constitutional guarantees. There is a constant threat by judges who sneak through Senate confirmation. Judges who are unfriendly to the constitution never used to make it to the bench, at least not before Reid and Obama nuked the Senate to stack the courts with Socialists. That's why Obama had the worst record before the Supreme Court of any full term president and any president since Zachary Taylor. Rulings by his lower court judges would end up being overturned by the Supremes with great regularity.

 

And I'm telling YOU that I take no position either way since I don't live there!!

 

What about where you live? Would you accept more homeless people moving into your area?

 

Absolutely; There is a human element involved here; you cannot discard them like you do with the garbage. They are not going to go away or disappear.

 

There are absolutely things that can be done, and steps that can be taken, to reduce the damaging effects that the homeless have on a neighborhood/city.

See: Rudy Giuliani NYC 1994 to 2001

There's an intersection in the Republican-run city where I live that I pass through on my way to work.

The homeless beg at the intersection, and they live under the bridge.



Dogoodniks regularly deliver free food to them, thereby facilitating and encouraging their shiftlessness and littering.

Nearby, just to the right of the bridge there, there was a stand of overgrown trees and bushes where the homeless decided to set up tent and boxkeeping as it was more comfortable and quiet than under the bridge with cars and trucks rumbling over their heads. The trash piles started to grow in the bushes until they reached dizzying heights and disgusting proportions, because the homeless have no respect for their surroundings, or themselves. The shantytown was situated next to a hotel, and the hotel guests would be treated to the homeless shouting and screeching all day and night, because, again, the homeless have no respect for their surroundings or themselves, or anybody else.

In a Democrat-run city, this homeless shantytown situation would, of course, have been allowed to grow and fester.

But this ain't no Democrat-run city.



And so the city workers came, escorted by the police, and they dismantled the shantytown, and tossed all the crap into garbage trucks, and then another crew came, and they cut down all the trees to the stumps you see there, and they tore out all the bushes.

And back under the bridge went the homeless.

You don't have to let the homeless run amok, and throw garbage all over your city, and turn your neighborhoods into trash pits.

If you think letting the homeless crap all over your neighborhood makes you a better, more virtuous, person, then, by all means, let them run amok and turn your liberal-utopia city/neighborhood into a trash heap, and an open sewer. Go ahead, see if I care.