These are not malls. They are places owned by the local governments. They are not private places. They are public places. We have a duty to house homeless people. Why? Because we can afford to do so and it's the right and humane thing to do. If we don't and they can't do it themselves. We treat animals better than human beings.
Sounds nice until you have twelve homeless people sleeping in the park your kid plays at after school. I can empathize, but let's not pretend there is no appreciable downside here.
I am not saying accommodate homeless people in public, I am saying give them housing. Everyone should have at least a small room to sleep in with an attached bathroom, and a small kitchenette.
"Local authorities do not have to provide housing for all homeless people. Instead, they have a duty to house 'statutory' homeless people and, every year, tens of thousands of people apply to their local authority for homelessness assistance.
"To be legally defined as homeless you must either lack a secure place in which you are entitled to live or not reasonably be able to stay in your current accommodation. However, in order for your local authority to have a duty to find you housing, there are further strict criteria that you have to meet. The housing a local authority provides to households who meet these criteria, mainly families with children, may initially be temporary accommodation.
"If you don't have dependent children (known as ‘single homelessness') and you are not deemed to be more vulnerable than other homeless people, you probably won't be entitled to housing."
Is there more information on why "single homeless" would "probably won't be entitled to housing."?
"Your council must help if you’re legally homeless, but how much depends on your eligibility, your level of need and if your homelessness is your fault."
I know you're joking but that's exactly the avenue some homeless take. Steal from a liquor store or so and you have free housing and food for 6 months. Maybe even some liquor.
I know several cities where prosecutors are essentially refusing to convict homeless people because of this.
Well, when you put it like that, I'm sure the homeless would understand. Why not go and tell them to their faces? I'm sure they've never considered any alternative options at all.
Do you know what "homeless" means? I don't care if you don't, but it's weird that you'd aggressively push a position if you don't understand what you're talking about, which you clearly don't if you don't understand the differences between people who are statutorily homeless and people who are actually homeless.
29 comments
[ 0.36 ms ] story [ 74.6 ms ] threadSomeone bought land and developed it, why should anyone be allowed to use it against their wishes?
I don't consider sleeping rough reasonable:
"Your council must help if you’re legally homeless" - https://www.gov.uk/emergency-housing-if-homeless
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-boroughs-spent-...
Animals can be owned, people are responsible for themselves.
Tell me how well animals do in the wild.
"Local authorities do not have to provide housing for all homeless people. Instead, they have a duty to house 'statutory' homeless people and, every year, tens of thousands of people apply to their local authority for homelessness assistance.
"To be legally defined as homeless you must either lack a secure place in which you are entitled to live or not reasonably be able to stay in your current accommodation. However, in order for your local authority to have a duty to find you housing, there are further strict criteria that you have to meet. The housing a local authority provides to households who meet these criteria, mainly families with children, may initially be temporary accommodation.
"If you don't have dependent children (known as ‘single homelessness') and you are not deemed to be more vulnerable than other homeless people, you probably won't be entitled to housing."
"Your council must help if you’re legally homeless, but how much depends on your eligibility, your level of need and if your homelessness is your fault."
So where then?
I know several cities where prosecutors are essentially refusing to convict homeless people because of this.
Well, when you put it like that, I'm sure the homeless would understand. Why not go and tell them to their faces? I'm sure they've never considered any alternative options at all.
Why not provide some facts rather than snarky anecdotes?
> Up to a third of homeless young people turned away when they seek help from their local council, research reveals
Young people here means 16-24 year olds.
"homeless or about to become homeless"
So which is it? And why?
Unless that detail can be provided, I'm not impressed by this reporting...
The title of the article did not state "statutorily homeless", nor "facing homelessness", hence I am not impressed by this reporting.
I'm supposed to assume this is what is "actually" means, rather than "actual homeless[ness]"?
1) accept that homeless people will sleep on property you developed or support with your taxes, and get over it
2) move them to someone else's property or some other city so it's someone else's problem
3[a]) put them in jail or 3[b]) expand and improve public shelters, thus costing even more of your tax money
4) kill them, which is obviously not really an option
Am I missing something? Do you have any other ideas?
Better the commons than individual landlords
I wonder about the liability concerning such events.