This has been America for a long, long time - The question is, what are you going to do to help minimize this? How about Some humanity not hate.
Link: https://allthatsinteresting.com/history-of-hobos#22
Only someone who has never set foot outside the US can say that. Or a total dipshit partisan.
That said, the homeless in San Fran are like an occupying army. You can go there and get a sense of what it must have been like to have the Goths sack your city in the old days: everywhere bunches of stinky, unpredictable drunks who speak gibberish walk around in packs.
(no message)
Link: The Dirty Truth About San Francisco's Sidewalks
Yeah, some hyperbole in SF as worst in the world
I lived in São Paulo and even the favelas do not tolerate public defacation or drug use.
and a dump on the street in India is a "coffee break." I think that is the thing that freaks out most of the people I know when they travel in India.
So, I get the point that SF is disgusting, but not even close to "worst in the world." And my experience in Sao Paolo is that is may be one of the least safe places anywhere. I certainly can't recall the degree of security required anywhere in Europe or even Asia?
... SF is indeed a mess, I just find it better if the hyperbole is tamped down a bit.
(no message)
(no message)
I remember thinking, "What those places need is more people." Kinda like Cali.
And, for that record, The Big Easy is much worse than anything California can throw at us, so I'm asking Curly to officially retract his claim as well as disavow any time in his life where he may have pretended to be a racial or ethnic minority or laughed at someone pretending to be a racial or ethnic minority. For instance, if he ever chuckled at C. Thomas Howell in Soul Man.
It is one of the worst places in the world. 20 years ago the people were great and made it tolerable. Not so much anymore.
If San Francisco wasn't so progressive, then these folks would clean up and get a job?
Or would it be that they'd just spread out to other cities more?
It turns out that when you provide all sorts of services and generally make your city more attractive to the homeless, they flock to those cities and not the less hospitable ones. It happens here in Madison. If you actually talked with homeless people, they'd even tell you all this.
Okay, you can let go now.
But we don't have any disagreement as to the substance of your post. I'm not sure why you think we did. See my answer to Curly below.
are located in progressive communities.
They have to live somewhere. As MAS said, they are going to places in which they get the best treatment. Let's start with us all agreeing on that.
The issue is whether it is our future. Specifically, your post asked if this was our future (presumably meaning would we all have this if all places became as progressive as San Francisco). My answer is no. If you have 100 homeless, and they all go to San Francisco because it is very progressive, then what happens if you make 100 cities just as progressive?
Those 100 homeless are now spread out over the 100 cities (one per city). That means the scenes you see of San Francisco would not be our "progressive future" because no city would have the concentration of them that SF has now.
You know it
Pipe in Sarah MacLachlan music?
Most of the other 100 most populous cities will not and cannot enact policies like San Francisco, so what you're talking about is Fantasyland stuff. Millions of people see what's going on there with codification of the sorts of sentiments and dogma I write about all the time with regards to contemporary Leftism. It's a disaster. Even here in liberal Madison, we've had a large segment of the population that's had enough of not being able to walk around downtown, by the capitol, without almost stumbling over homeless people sleeping and begging. Our 1960s radical mayor was made into a reactionary right-winger when he proposed an area somewhere else where the homeless could set up camp. It's crazy. Of course people in cities that aren't leftist bastions are going to want no part of the sorts of policies that result in these situations.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that doing the sorts of things that these places do: not enforcing vagrancy, public exposure, littering, needle exchange programs, drug laws, et cetera, are a recipe for disaster for anyone who values a quality of life for the entire polis. Then again, if you can live behind a gate or wall in these communities, perhaps you just have to care about your own insular world that the homeless will never invade?
Of course there's a connection between "progressive" policies and situations like these.
I just questioned how he thought that the situation in San Francisco represented how all cities would look if they too became "progressive".
You are treating the topic a bit more in depth, and that is appreciated. But I am still not seeing the case that "progressiveness" on a nationwide basis leads to San Francisco's problems on a nationwide basis.
I glean from your post that you believe enforcing laws more rigorously would help clean up messes like that. That could be, and it's certainly a reasonable argument. But that leads to the question, what happens if everyone does that? Do the homeless then just go to jail? If vagrancy laws are strictly enforced, then where do the homeless go? If needle exchange programs are canned, do the homeless stop using drugs, or do they just die from dirty needles? I certainly agree on "indecent exposure". I'm not sure why "progressives" are in favor of that.
(no message)
(no message)