• quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do. But they don’t have more of a right to it than you do. OP’s idea that some people have greater rights than others is pretty widely regarded as evil.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        OP isn’t saying they have a greater right to housing but that the right to housing outweighs the right to prettyness in public spaces. We can make them prettier by moving them to housing but not just by kicking them out with no housing options.

      • ???@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s better for everyone, including homeless people, to live in homes rather than set up camp in public places where it can cause problems for them and other people. At least that’s what bothered me about the post OP made. Housing-first works for a reason.

  • lightnegative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Public spaces are for all of the public. A subset of the public doesn’t have the right to infringe on the rest of the public’s enjoyment or use of a space

    • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you put a blanket down on a beach, you are infringing on everyone else’s use of that space. So… what then? No one’s allowed to use public space ever, since any time someone does, the rest of the public can’t use it?

      The entire Earth started as public space, yet I assume you think its OK that people can build a house, put up a fence and say, “Mine”. What gives them the right? People need homes and the space wasn’t being used for a home. Well, now it is.

      Leave the homeless people alone.

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I mean, technically, your towel on the beach is very temporary. Unhoused people can be there for years.

        Your point is valid, but your argument is weak. Vacating unhoused people from the streets shouldn’t be the priority, the priority should be to address the underlying problem to let them get off the streets on their own. A lot of them are there because they had a traumatic experience in the shelter, they have a pet, etc.

        Unfortunately, we live in a society where we fix symptoms rather than causes, because it’s recurring revenue and is good for shareholders when you have “repeat customers”.

  • Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not just that

    Put money towards helping them and also money towards preventing more from being homeless

      • Tigbitties@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually, I live in the downtown area of a major city. I see lots of homeless and drug abusers. So does my 10yo son. Some of them are shit people but the majority of them just need help.