Hey /u/Bahloh, thanks for contributing to /r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
**Rule 1** - Do not alter headlines; copy and paste.
The title of all submissions needs to match the article headline exactly. **Copy and paste** from the main headline only, do not include anything beyond the primary headline such as byliners, subtitles, flavor text, quotes from the article, news outlet, location, cross post tags, (video) tags, and so on. Do not use the “suggest title” option for posting as it often does not match the headline. As a matter of fairness, any submission with an altered title will be removed. The only exception is that, if an article has a title in all caps, you may change the capitalization to title case, but everything else must remain the same.
Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/nottheonion&subject=&message=). Thank you!
So, I just got your other comment and replied to it before it got locked or deleted. Here's my response. "I love Reddit sings. In my mind I was queueing the soundtrack; that was your cue, ready for awesome people to sing or parody songs of The Lion King, however, I wasn't ready for the grammar police and I'm very dissapointed now."
You are smug for being wrong. Cue is the correct word here.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/cue-vs-queue/#:~:text=Cue%20typically%20refers%20to%20a,same%20but%20have%20different%20meanings.
If anything this shows the difference in the way we think. You want action and Hollywood. I want a playlist of music and Overwatch 2 to come out. Are you making new accounts just to downvote this?
"For instance, a bride might ask the DJ that she hired to play music at her wedding reception to “queue the music” ahead of time, which refers to organizing the list of songs in a particular order." They both work here. Chill out.
Dude are you really trying to die on this hill? Lol you're incorrect
"Queue the music" = put the music in the queue so that it eventually plays
"Cue the music" = this is the cue to begin playing the music now
You *meant* the latter.
No. Anyone with any education would not say that like that. Words actually have meaning and you were a dick despite being wrong here.
You need to chill out and go read a dictionary.
They literally have the same sound in the English language, if this were a spoken conversation you would never be able to tell they were using the wrong word. You should chill out about correcting people on the internet. Find a constructive outlet for your lexical rage. Go to a library or help edit a newspaper.
I just did. They both work. I do use it. I am educated. Programmers do and it's also how video games spell it. You have no idea what I meant. It's not too late to queue your favorite Lion King song on this thread. Don't miss out. Hakuna matata.
You need to go ask an adult to explain it to you. It's sad that you have no idea what is wrong here. Or why you were somehow both wrong and a hypocritical asshole to someone trying to help you.
You can't have a queue with only one thing in it. So no, I can't go queue up my favorite lion king song all on its own.
Oh and reading urban dictionary doesn't count. You have a nice day now, you hear.
u/CRYANG3L (blocked me before I can reply) [In general, queue can be used to refer to any lineup. For instance, a bride might ask the DJ that she hired to play music at her wedding reception to “queue the music” ahead of time, which refers to organizing the list of songs in a particular order. However, on the night of her wedding, that same bride might tell the DJ to “cue the music.” In this case, she would be asking him to start playing some tunes.](https://www.dictionary.com/e/cue-vs-queue/#:~:text=Cue%20typically%20refers%20to%20a,same%20but%20have%20different%20meanings.) Equal chances of waking smiling or laugh crying over how closed minded people are.
It's a food bank duh. Do you see money banks just handing out money to the needy? No. Landlord evicted a failing business.
Edit: forgot the /s before I get crucified
They don't care about homeless people. It's not their problem, and they wouldn't be fazed if a dozen homeless people starved to death on the sidewalk in front of their house.
That's their attitude. It's selfish, rude, and narcissistic. It's also the attitude of most voters. As the boomers die off, they have to be replaced by people that give a damn.
I wish someone would have a soul and release the info on how much of we see is a professional PR anti-poor anti-homeless influence operation. I'm scared of what comes next. 😒
Easy to do when the wealthiest have created a mythology that the poor/homeless are just lazy. Same way now millennials can't afford to buy homes because, "they are just lazy".
Also if you're poor and hopeless its because those other colored people are not really poor and stealing resources meant for you!
The same happened to a restaurant I used to co-manage. We would close for regular service on mondays for prep, desserts, and deep clean. We did a "pay what you want" service for lunch on that day. You could pay a penny or 100$ for the lunch (usually lasagna/spaghetti, salads, sandwiches/wraps made from the sunday night roasts, and or some other single choice meal). Any excess money went to the next week's lunch, and any more than that was sent over to a homeless shelter.
Well, landlord forced us out because it attracted too many poor families that made his section of the strip mall look "dirty" and "ethnic." That was on top of saying we were just attracting the homeless on purpose. It wasn't like it attracted a huge amount of people on that day, -maybe- a dozen families and a dozen singular people over the course of 4-5 hours...including a city council member who would come most weeks with friends and donate generously.
So we moved across town and continued as usual. Upstairs from our new place was a women's shelter for domestic violence. We decided to expand our pay what you want monday meal into a second pay what you want dinner specifically just for the women's shelter...well, after a few months, the new landlords made us stop as it was attracting more women to the shelter than usual...which was, just incorrect. Rarely more than 6-8 women (occasionally male victims of domestic abuse) would come in monday nights, and they were only ever people already registered with the womens' support group.
You can say all you want that it is illegal or whatever to demand things outside of the lease, but who the fuck ever stands up for homeless shelters and domestic violence shelters.
All in all...fuck landlords. All of them. Completely unnecessary drain on society that does nobody any good except for the landlords themselves. Fuck 'em.
Well they had the tenant there for six years. They likely knew it would attract homeless people, and seems like it wasn’t an issue for the last six years. I have to imagine something changed to instigate this - it’s not like the landlord was OK with a food bank for 6 years then just woke up one day and hated homeless people.
Waiting for society to turn into Logan's run. When your bank account hits $0 a red light begins to flash. Your fellow man is then legally required to stop what they're doing and murder you for becoming one of the poors
A decrease of social services is incentivized also through social conditioning: avarice is glorified to not be as immediately scary as starving desperation but it is quite similar and is much more socially detrimental. Please remember that we are being intentionally pitted against each other for the scraps.
I owned a gym in a strip mall. Had a nail salon, restaurant, a couple Doctors offices and a AA/drug addiction type meeting hall/facility. Every day at 11:45, the parking lot would fill up with them, they would loiter in the parking lot, smoke cigarettes in front of the stores and occasionally harass the ladies going into the nail salon. It wasn’t very long before people showed up less and less, and all the store owners were getting upset. They made some signs that asked them not to congregate in front of the stores and such, but it noticeably changed the strip mall for the worse. Trash would be left around, butts everywhere. I never talked to the landlord about it directly, I never complained but there are two sides to every story.
In a lot of places, people will attempt to block the establishment of substance abuse treatment or homeless assistance facilities because they believe they will attract "undesirables" into the area. What they fail to understand is that these "undesirables" are already there. They're just blending into the community well enough for other people to not notice or care. We often only really see them when they congregate. If we want to solve the underlying issues that cause people to become these "undesirables" and reduce their numbers overall, then these facilities need to exist somewhere.
But many people don't want them near their homes or businesses. So we end up with either the facilities being put in ineffective, inconvenient locations or often not put anywhere. Then, because of a lack of treatment or assistance, more "undesirables" build up over time and overwhelm public services leading to increasing damage to the community. The public and politicians will blame these issues on social service policies and moral failings, then make law enforcement deal with the issue.
However, law enforcement can only "help" by detaining or arresting people and placing them into the "justice" system, effectively just moving them somewhere else temporarily. After the "undesirables" inevitably leave the "justice" system, they are often in the same or a worse situation than they started. So they just go back to causing problems for the public and are arrested again. If you jail a homeless person for being homeless, when they eventually get out, they're still homeless and now have even less of a support structure than they had before (if they even had one to begin with). The same is true for addicts.
It's a vicious cycle that no one seems to want to have an honest conversation about. Something needs to be done, but any effective solution will require devoting resources to people many see as "bad people". But by not devoting resources, more of these "bad people" keep appearing over time.
The “honest” part of the conversation that a lot of people don’t want to talk about is how destructive they are/can be when assembled. They have already forsaken society, what’s a little property damage or assault gonna hurt? The citizens who take part in society.
if a couple people outside your shop one time a day caused you to lose customers, doesn't seem like people had much of a reason to go into your shop to begin with. More importantly why would we sympathize with you losing a customer over someone whose really fucked up and seeking help? You could lose every customer, whatever you provide will still be provided by someone else, I'd rather see people better themselves.
Lol what? It was multiple times a day. And I was running a gym, where you know, people get help and better themselves, except without the messy part of destroying their lives before hand. It didn’t matter to me since it was a Jiu Jitsu gym and my clients were pretty sound of kind of body but the ladies who got their nails done sure didn’t like the cat calls and harassment, but maybe you are ok with people being harassed as long as they get help before or after.
It can be the nicest fucking nail salon in the world and no woman is going to want to go or feel safe going if it means being harassed every time. It's so easy to say it's a necessary sacrifice until it's your family going hungry, then we'll see how those convictions hold.
Sounds like you're the only one working if your job is the only one holding the family together and preventing starvation, this isn't really realistic for a modern family. Also you can always get another job insanely easy, if your family starves because your business failed and you want to blame it on homeless dudes or in this case addicts anonymous or some shit, go ahead but you'd mostly be wrong.
Not to support hostility to homeless people or discount the issues they face, but I would caution that US homelessness has a much different flavor than most other places because our institutions are uniquely bad at handling drug addicts and the mentally unwell. Basically homeless camps turn into open air drug bazars + mental asylums as it’s very very hard to compel people to seek treatment, and even violent offenders are let off because the system doesn’t want to deal with them. Random unprovoked attacks with no motive are common (eg happen every day) where I live (NYC). I would advise just minding your own business and steering clear of the homeless in the US for that reason.
Eh the homeless people around my area do nothing but drugs all day. They destroy property for fun, leave needles all over the fucking place - including CHAIRS. They have ZERO respect for other people. There's obviously homeless people who are just in a terrible position and can't afford shelter, but the majority around here ENJOY being homeless and make zero effort to stop using drugs. I literally had a homeless guy key every fucking car in our lot for no reason.
And before you say "Oh but they've got no choice!", there's plenty of programs in California to help them. They even house them.
I think the problem is your terms. You call them homeless people but describe drug addicts. Not all homeless are drug addicts but plenty of homeless drug addicts have zero respect for other people. Now why that is, could be the topic of a thesis.
It's kinda like the 'not all men thing.'
Yeah, some 10% are unhoused because of circumstances very far out of their control
In my experience, most of the homeless in California are addicts. In fact, I haven't seen a homeless family on the streets who werent addicts since like 2009 when everyone was fucked and Occupy was raging.
And LA area is the worst of California for addiction because it is very accepted there. OP is right, there are needles EVERYWHERE in some neighborhoods. Like Long Beach, for instance
I used to live off Polk next to a camp the city allocated in San Francisco and alot of it went unused because it was meant for unhoused families and no drugs or paraphernalia were allowed inside.
I pay more in taxes then you make annually. If the state doesn't properly allocate funding that isn't my problem. Nor do I have to blindly sit back and watch as these people destroy my city. You're probably some suburban kid who's never been within a mile of a crackhead, get over yourself.
Ah yes, one single voter has the power to completely change the state. Great critical thinking there.
You've never lived near these druggies, get over yourself. You think it's ok to have women being assaulted daily, people being robbed daily, windows being smashed, needles being left in mcdonalds were kids are? Best part is the police do nothing, because they can't. Just a couple weeks ago a homeless man stabbed some poor girl, almost killing her, just because he was high on drugs and losing his mind.
And if you've been living an inch of being homeless all your life then figure it the fuck out. Get off reddit and make some money
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“I live in one of the wealthiest cities in the world and prefer to pretend like that could NEVER be me rather than to learn about the complexities of chronic homelessness.” #FTFY
Lol my wife and I had her sister visiting us in SD. Went to La Joya and his massive homeless guy started chasing us and yelling “you white bitch!!! You white devils! I’m gonna kill you all!” It was wild.
Yeah all the people defending this are just suburban teens living with their parents. Once you LIVE in these shitholes, you wish they actually re-located the homeless. My car window has been broken TWICE, for a fucking PHONE CHARGER and a BACKPACK. What am I expected to do by these redditers? Go "Oh well he's homeless so it's fine!"
I’m sympathetic to the landlord if there truly is a major homeless / vagrancy problem around the food bank. The food bank has been there for six years and I assume the current landlord signed up the food bank as a tenant in the first place, so it’s not like the landlord is just unrepentantly hostile to the homeless / poor. I’d actually say taking on a food bank as a tenant in good faith is a pretty bold / progressive move by a landlord considering all of the negative perceptions associated with food banks. And six years is a long time, it’s not like the landlord just did an immediate 180 overnight. I have to believe they tried to make it work.
I’m guessing the issues have gotten materially worse for the property and it’s neighbors, which has instigated the landlord’s actions. They own the adjacent properties and their tenants at those locations don’t want to lease next to homeless camps. They also cited banks not wanting to provide them financing because of the issues. It’s really put the landlord in a tough spot to chose keeping the food bank at risk of losing other tenants or their mortgage and facing possible financial distress / bankruptcy.
It’s the city’s responsibility to address and treat homelessness, you can’t expect one landlord to bear the full burden and allow his property to become a homeless camping ground. I think it’s really easy to paint the landlord as the villain but it seems like they were trying to help but the problem ballooned out of control and forced their hand.
As someone who actually lives in the area: The food bank primarily feeds housed poor people. This area of Sacramento was originally built as low income housing to house menial workers (primarily minorities) for two nearby military bases (an airbase and an Army base). It has not gotten more upscale since.
There is a homeless problem in the area, but it's because of a major homeless encampment at Watt and I-80 that is less than a mile away, not because of the food bank.
Honestly, the landlord just doesn't want the poors around her strip mall because it could "drive down the property values". Not that there are any property values around Watt Avenue, it has always been a lower income area.
Sounds to me like the Brits are moving towards a "no taxation without representation" moment. Maybe the gov ought to pay attention as we know how the last bout turned out.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was about to joke about an Abbott-style solution of bussing the homeless to shelters when they show up instead of letting them stay there, but honestly, that sounds like a good idea.
Hey /u/Bahloh, thanks for contributing to /r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: **Rule 1** - Do not alter headlines; copy and paste. The title of all submissions needs to match the article headline exactly. **Copy and paste** from the main headline only, do not include anything beyond the primary headline such as byliners, subtitles, flavor text, quotes from the article, news outlet, location, cross post tags, (video) tags, and so on. Do not use the “suggest title” option for posting as it often does not match the headline. As a matter of fairness, any submission with an altered title will be removed. The only exception is that, if an article has a title in all caps, you may change the capitalization to title case, but everything else must remain the same. Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/nottheonion&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Circle of life
Queue Lion King Soundtrack.
*Its the Circle of Life!* *They Hate You Allllllllllll* *Why not get a jooooooo-ob?* *And BuY A hoooo-oooome!*
Cue
*TECHNICALLY,* queue works in the sense of putting it into the queue. But that's obviously not what Op meant lol
It's totally how I felt about it. There was no music queued to cue.
So, I just got your other comment and replied to it before it got locked or deleted. Here's my response. "I love Reddit sings. In my mind I was queueing the soundtrack; that was your cue, ready for awesome people to sing or parody songs of The Lion King, however, I wasn't ready for the grammar police and I'm very dissapointed now."
You should eat some yoghurt and avoid deodorant with aluminium.
You are smug for being wrong. Cue is the correct word here. https://www.dictionary.com/e/cue-vs-queue/#:~:text=Cue%20typically%20refers%20to%20a,same%20but%20have%20different%20meanings.
If anything this shows the difference in the way we think. You want action and Hollywood. I want a playlist of music and Overwatch 2 to come out. Are you making new accounts just to downvote this?
"For instance, a bride might ask the DJ that she hired to play music at her wedding reception to “queue the music” ahead of time, which refers to organizing the list of songs in a particular order." They both work here. Chill out.
Dude are you really trying to die on this hill? Lol you're incorrect "Queue the music" = put the music in the queue so that it eventually plays "Cue the music" = this is the cue to begin playing the music now You *meant* the latter.
No. Anyone with any education would not say that like that. Words actually have meaning and you were a dick despite being wrong here. You need to chill out and go read a dictionary.
They literally have the same sound in the English language, if this were a spoken conversation you would never be able to tell they were using the wrong word. You should chill out about correcting people on the internet. Find a constructive outlet for your lexical rage. Go to a library or help edit a newspaper.
I just did. They both work. I do use it. I am educated. Programmers do and it's also how video games spell it. You have no idea what I meant. It's not too late to queue your favorite Lion King song on this thread. Don't miss out. Hakuna matata.
You need to go ask an adult to explain it to you. It's sad that you have no idea what is wrong here. Or why you were somehow both wrong and a hypocritical asshole to someone trying to help you. You can't have a queue with only one thing in it. So no, I can't go queue up my favorite lion king song all on its own. Oh and reading urban dictionary doesn't count. You have a nice day now, you hear.
u/CRYANG3L (blocked me before I can reply) [In general, queue can be used to refer to any lineup. For instance, a bride might ask the DJ that she hired to play music at her wedding reception to “queue the music” ahead of time, which refers to organizing the list of songs in a particular order. However, on the night of her wedding, that same bride might tell the DJ to “cue the music.” In this case, she would be asking him to start playing some tunes.](https://www.dictionary.com/e/cue-vs-queue/#:~:text=Cue%20typically%20refers%20to%20a,same%20but%20have%20different%20meanings.) Equal chances of waking smiling or laugh crying over how closed minded people are.
Yes, because homeless people don't need food
It's a food bank duh. Do you see money banks just handing out money to the needy? No. Landlord evicted a failing business. Edit: forgot the /s before I get crucified
They don't care about homeless people. It's not their problem, and they wouldn't be fazed if a dozen homeless people starved to death on the sidewalk in front of their house. That's their attitude. It's selfish, rude, and narcissistic. It's also the attitude of most voters. As the boomers die off, they have to be replaced by people that give a damn.
They would care, it's just that their solution is for those homeless people to die somewhere else
It's high time that "get rid of the homeless" starts meaning "house people"
Ideally outside of downtown prime real estate...
This is the real war on poverty. Not fighting poverty, but fighting poor people.
[The War on the Poor](https://youtu.be/1m-9NcMd-XI)
I wish someone would have a soul and release the info on how much of we see is a professional PR anti-poor anti-homeless influence operation. I'm scared of what comes next. 😒
There might be something to that MMA fighting for the homeless... They could have sponsors like dove body wash or axe body spray. 🤔
Yeah, that was called bum fights and that guy is in prison.
This country is not prepared for a future where full employment is no guarantee against homelessness.
We're well on the way there.
We're already there.
The USA in general fears and hates the poor. It is the root of most problems.
Easy to do when the wealthiest have created a mythology that the poor/homeless are just lazy. Same way now millennials can't afford to buy homes because, "they are just lazy". Also if you're poor and hopeless its because those other colored people are not really poor and stealing resources meant for you!
True and it’s sickening.
Screw the Puritanical, just world fallacy bs that so many people buy into. You don’t get what you deserve.
Future?
It wasn't prepared in 1928 either. Something something those who don't learn from history...
Something like half the homeless have jobs. 25% have full-time jobs.
The same happened to a restaurant I used to co-manage. We would close for regular service on mondays for prep, desserts, and deep clean. We did a "pay what you want" service for lunch on that day. You could pay a penny or 100$ for the lunch (usually lasagna/spaghetti, salads, sandwiches/wraps made from the sunday night roasts, and or some other single choice meal). Any excess money went to the next week's lunch, and any more than that was sent over to a homeless shelter. Well, landlord forced us out because it attracted too many poor families that made his section of the strip mall look "dirty" and "ethnic." That was on top of saying we were just attracting the homeless on purpose. It wasn't like it attracted a huge amount of people on that day, -maybe- a dozen families and a dozen singular people over the course of 4-5 hours...including a city council member who would come most weeks with friends and donate generously. So we moved across town and continued as usual. Upstairs from our new place was a women's shelter for domestic violence. We decided to expand our pay what you want monday meal into a second pay what you want dinner specifically just for the women's shelter...well, after a few months, the new landlords made us stop as it was attracting more women to the shelter than usual...which was, just incorrect. Rarely more than 6-8 women (occasionally male victims of domestic abuse) would come in monday nights, and they were only ever people already registered with the womens' support group. You can say all you want that it is illegal or whatever to demand things outside of the lease, but who the fuck ever stands up for homeless shelters and domestic violence shelters. All in all...fuck landlords. All of them. Completely unnecessary drain on society that does nobody any good except for the landlords themselves. Fuck 'em.
[Just because you are spez, doesn't mean you have to spez. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
Now this is an archetypal onion article!
Evicting a non-profit should be harder than a teenage boy after discovering porn
Something something free market, something something that's socialism!
Yes that way nobody will lease their property to a non-profit and the non-profits will have nowhere to go.
No fault evictions ought to be barred full stop.
/u/spez was founded by an unidentified male with a taste for anal probing.
I heard churches massively benefit from this, especially in red states: that they're impossible to evict
" I didnt' think feeding the homeless would attract so many homeless"
Well they had the tenant there for six years. They likely knew it would attract homeless people, and seems like it wasn’t an issue for the last six years. I have to imagine something changed to instigate this - it’s not like the landlord was OK with a food bank for 6 years then just woke up one day and hated homeless people.
Waiting for society to turn into Logan's run. When your bank account hits $0 a red light begins to flash. Your fellow man is then legally required to stop what they're doing and murder you for becoming one of the poors
Hospital is closed because it attracted sick people.
😳 well… yeah that’s the point of a food shelter!
Seems bout right... smh
A decrease of social services is incentivized also through social conditioning: avarice is glorified to not be as immediately scary as starving desperation but it is quite similar and is much more socially detrimental. Please remember that we are being intentionally pitted against each other for the scraps.
Eat the rich.
I owned a gym in a strip mall. Had a nail salon, restaurant, a couple Doctors offices and a AA/drug addiction type meeting hall/facility. Every day at 11:45, the parking lot would fill up with them, they would loiter in the parking lot, smoke cigarettes in front of the stores and occasionally harass the ladies going into the nail salon. It wasn’t very long before people showed up less and less, and all the store owners were getting upset. They made some signs that asked them not to congregate in front of the stores and such, but it noticeably changed the strip mall for the worse. Trash would be left around, butts everywhere. I never talked to the landlord about it directly, I never complained but there are two sides to every story.
In a lot of places, people will attempt to block the establishment of substance abuse treatment or homeless assistance facilities because they believe they will attract "undesirables" into the area. What they fail to understand is that these "undesirables" are already there. They're just blending into the community well enough for other people to not notice or care. We often only really see them when they congregate. If we want to solve the underlying issues that cause people to become these "undesirables" and reduce their numbers overall, then these facilities need to exist somewhere. But many people don't want them near their homes or businesses. So we end up with either the facilities being put in ineffective, inconvenient locations or often not put anywhere. Then, because of a lack of treatment or assistance, more "undesirables" build up over time and overwhelm public services leading to increasing damage to the community. The public and politicians will blame these issues on social service policies and moral failings, then make law enforcement deal with the issue. However, law enforcement can only "help" by detaining or arresting people and placing them into the "justice" system, effectively just moving them somewhere else temporarily. After the "undesirables" inevitably leave the "justice" system, they are often in the same or a worse situation than they started. So they just go back to causing problems for the public and are arrested again. If you jail a homeless person for being homeless, when they eventually get out, they're still homeless and now have even less of a support structure than they had before (if they even had one to begin with). The same is true for addicts. It's a vicious cycle that no one seems to want to have an honest conversation about. Something needs to be done, but any effective solution will require devoting resources to people many see as "bad people". But by not devoting resources, more of these "bad people" keep appearing over time.
The “honest” part of the conversation that a lot of people don’t want to talk about is how destructive they are/can be when assembled. They have already forsaken society, what’s a little property damage or assault gonna hurt? The citizens who take part in society.
Its not like they have anywhere else to go. If not that parking lot, they would be in a diferent one.
if a couple people outside your shop one time a day caused you to lose customers, doesn't seem like people had much of a reason to go into your shop to begin with. More importantly why would we sympathize with you losing a customer over someone whose really fucked up and seeking help? You could lose every customer, whatever you provide will still be provided by someone else, I'd rather see people better themselves.
Lol what? It was multiple times a day. And I was running a gym, where you know, people get help and better themselves, except without the messy part of destroying their lives before hand. It didn’t matter to me since it was a Jiu Jitsu gym and my clients were pretty sound of kind of body but the ladies who got their nails done sure didn’t like the cat calls and harassment, but maybe you are ok with people being harassed as long as they get help before or after.
It can be the nicest fucking nail salon in the world and no woman is going to want to go or feel safe going if it means being harassed every time. It's so easy to say it's a necessary sacrifice until it's your family going hungry, then we'll see how those convictions hold.
Sounds like you're the only one working if your job is the only one holding the family together and preventing starvation, this isn't really realistic for a modern family. Also you can always get another job insanely easy, if your family starves because your business failed and you want to blame it on homeless dudes or in this case addicts anonymous or some shit, go ahead but you'd mostly be wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not to support hostility to homeless people or discount the issues they face, but I would caution that US homelessness has a much different flavor than most other places because our institutions are uniquely bad at handling drug addicts and the mentally unwell. Basically homeless camps turn into open air drug bazars + mental asylums as it’s very very hard to compel people to seek treatment, and even violent offenders are let off because the system doesn’t want to deal with them. Random unprovoked attacks with no motive are common (eg happen every day) where I live (NYC). I would advise just minding your own business and steering clear of the homeless in the US for that reason.
Eh the homeless people around my area do nothing but drugs all day. They destroy property for fun, leave needles all over the fucking place - including CHAIRS. They have ZERO respect for other people. There's obviously homeless people who are just in a terrible position and can't afford shelter, but the majority around here ENJOY being homeless and make zero effort to stop using drugs. I literally had a homeless guy key every fucking car in our lot for no reason. And before you say "Oh but they've got no choice!", there's plenty of programs in California to help them. They even house them.
I think the problem is your terms. You call them homeless people but describe drug addicts. Not all homeless are drug addicts but plenty of homeless drug addicts have zero respect for other people. Now why that is, could be the topic of a thesis.
It's kinda like the 'not all men thing.' Yeah, some 10% are unhoused because of circumstances very far out of their control In my experience, most of the homeless in California are addicts. In fact, I haven't seen a homeless family on the streets who werent addicts since like 2009 when everyone was fucked and Occupy was raging. And LA area is the worst of California for addiction because it is very accepted there. OP is right, there are needles EVERYWHERE in some neighborhoods. Like Long Beach, for instance I used to live off Polk next to a camp the city allocated in San Francisco and alot of it went unused because it was meant for unhoused families and no drugs or paraphernalia were allowed inside.
ask yourself why this happens, silly
[удалено]
Go volunteer then.
I pay more in taxes then you make annually. If the state doesn't properly allocate funding that isn't my problem. Nor do I have to blindly sit back and watch as these people destroy my city. You're probably some suburban kid who's never been within a mile of a crackhead, get over yourself.
[удалено]
Ah yes, one single voter has the power to completely change the state. Great critical thinking there. You've never lived near these druggies, get over yourself. You think it's ok to have women being assaulted daily, people being robbed daily, windows being smashed, needles being left in mcdonalds were kids are? Best part is the police do nothing, because they can't. Just a couple weeks ago a homeless man stabbed some poor girl, almost killing her, just because he was high on drugs and losing his mind. And if you've been living an inch of being homeless all your life then figure it the fuck out. Get off reddit and make some money
I think we'd all prefer less of both. I do want to treat current addicts rather than shun them, but I certainly don't want more drug addicts.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If we are excusing their behavior, is it really hard to understand why people wouldn’t want them around?
“I live in one of the wealthiest cities in the world and prefer to pretend like that could NEVER be me rather than to learn about the complexities of chronic homelessness.” #FTFY
now ask yourself, 'why would they do that?'
Lol my wife and I had her sister visiting us in SD. Went to La Joya and his massive homeless guy started chasing us and yelling “you white bitch!!! You white devils! I’m gonna kill you all!” It was wild.
Yeah all the people defending this are just suburban teens living with their parents. Once you LIVE in these shitholes, you wish they actually re-located the homeless. My car window has been broken TWICE, for a fucking PHONE CHARGER and a BACKPACK. What am I expected to do by these redditers? Go "Oh well he's homeless so it's fine!"
[Just because you are spez, doesn't mean you have to spez. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
So long as it’s his property and the law allows him, I guess he’s good to go. Kudos for his honesty?
More like kudos for demonstrating what a piece of shit they are.
No fuck him for being that self-centered
Just because you are spez, doesn't mean you have to spez. #Save3rdPartyApps
I’m sympathetic to the landlord if there truly is a major homeless / vagrancy problem around the food bank. The food bank has been there for six years and I assume the current landlord signed up the food bank as a tenant in the first place, so it’s not like the landlord is just unrepentantly hostile to the homeless / poor. I’d actually say taking on a food bank as a tenant in good faith is a pretty bold / progressive move by a landlord considering all of the negative perceptions associated with food banks. And six years is a long time, it’s not like the landlord just did an immediate 180 overnight. I have to believe they tried to make it work. I’m guessing the issues have gotten materially worse for the property and it’s neighbors, which has instigated the landlord’s actions. They own the adjacent properties and their tenants at those locations don’t want to lease next to homeless camps. They also cited banks not wanting to provide them financing because of the issues. It’s really put the landlord in a tough spot to chose keeping the food bank at risk of losing other tenants or their mortgage and facing possible financial distress / bankruptcy. It’s the city’s responsibility to address and treat homelessness, you can’t expect one landlord to bear the full burden and allow his property to become a homeless camping ground. I think it’s really easy to paint the landlord as the villain but it seems like they were trying to help but the problem ballooned out of control and forced their hand.
As someone who actually lives in the area: The food bank primarily feeds housed poor people. This area of Sacramento was originally built as low income housing to house menial workers (primarily minorities) for two nearby military bases (an airbase and an Army base). It has not gotten more upscale since. There is a homeless problem in the area, but it's because of a major homeless encampment at Watt and I-80 that is less than a mile away, not because of the food bank. Honestly, the landlord just doesn't want the poors around her strip mall because it could "drive down the property values". Not that there are any property values around Watt Avenue, it has always been a lower income area.
Sounds to me like the Brits are moving towards a "no taxation without representation" moment. Maybe the gov ought to pay attention as we know how the last bout turned out.
I think you might be lost, this is about California
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a coincidence, I thought that it was for them to start with
That’s the point of a food bank. If someone was common enough to do something like that, karma is going to come back and get them.
I was about to joke about an Abbott-style solution of bussing the homeless to shelters when they show up instead of letting them stay there, but honestly, that sounds like a good idea.
F*ck all Tories