Leave a comment

Comments 15

headcaseheidi March 31 2016, 07:11:00 UTC
Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty in Washington, D.C., called the measure "outrageous" and said it would be cheaper to provide homeless people with housing.

no shit. but they don't care about being semi-decent humans or even frugal, just about ~setting an example. rme.

Reply


spidergwen March 31 2016, 09:01:41 UTC
They can gather all their energy in resources in doing shit like this, but they can't(don't want to lbr) put their heads together to get to the root of the problem to solve it.

Reply


phililen3 March 31 2016, 09:34:43 UTC
We recognize this is just one step forward to address the homelessness crisis

You mean for people who are allergic to seeing people without housing and what they have to resort to.

But right now you have the ability to adopt an ordinance that promotes healthy and safe streets

For who? Certainly not people who live on the streets. If someone is exposed to the elements, how is that safe and healthy?

Instead of addressing the issues that have led to people living on the streets, they just want to punish people for making do.

Reply


velvetunicorn March 31 2016, 12:19:46 UTC
I literally have no idea how this is supposed to end homelessness. All this does is make it easier to ignore.

Reply

browneyedguuurl March 31 2016, 12:56:55 UTC
There are cities that are starting to house the homeless population and they are actually saving a shit ton of money. Giving those who are down some hope and dignity goes a long way.

Reply

darth_eldritch March 31 2016, 13:22:30 UTC
No, because you'll be giving hand outs and freebies to the lazy poor and we can't have that.

Even if it saves money, people would rather punish the poor.

Reply

browneyedguuurl March 31 2016, 13:26:47 UTC
You are so sadly true.

Reply


browneyedguuurl March 31 2016, 12:55:40 UTC

... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up