You’re stupid if you think this is the effect anti-homeless architecture is having in the places it’s being implemented. They have very little impact to begin with. I don’t pretend to think that shelters can’t be improved, but if people refuse to utilize the resources we have, we must either come up with new resources or reevaluate our investments in the resources we currently employ.
“Welcome! What brings you to the homeless shelter today?”
“Well, it’s that bench. You see, I was choosing the unhoused lifestyle, and I was fine with all the other stigma and physical discomforts, until I realized that the city wants to discourage my presence in public spaces. Fuck these armrests, I decided I’d just come to this shelter, get treatment for my addiction, get counseling for my traumatic past that fed the addiction, get an education, get a job, rent a house, save money, then buy a home instead. It’s just not worth trying to get comfy on that bench.”
Hey maybe I’m stupid too, but it seems to me it’d be way fucking easier and cheaper to just put some flyers in a little letterbox attached to the bench advertising the nearest homeless shelter or something, rather than inconveniencing literally everyone who wants to use the bench. But what do I know, I’m probably just stupid
Flyers wouldn’t prevent homeless people from using the bench as a bed, preventing other people from using it for its intended purpose, and would be almost entirely ignored.
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using? Also, I’m sure there are other more attention grabbing options than a flyer, if we use our imaginations a little bit. Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using?
If the homeless person was just sitting on the bench, it wouldn’t be an issue. The bench features we’re talking about aren’t designed to prevent people from sitting on them; they’re designed to prevent people from lying down on them comfortably, thereby taking up more space and using the bench for a purpose it was not intended.
You chided me for calling someone else stupid, so I’m trying to be nicer, but I honestly don’t feel like I should have to explain this to you.
Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
As I’ve said in other comments, I support outreach attempts as well. My focus is on this prevention technique because it’s the topic of the thread.
What difference does to make if someone is sitting on the bench, laying down, standing, crouching, or in any other comfortable resting position? It’s a public bench, to be used by the public however they see fit, as long as they’re not causing harm.
It’s weird to enforce the “correct” usage of a public bench, or the “correct” amount of space a person is allowed to take up, especially with such drastic elements that you yourself admit are not very effective.
It’s a political problem. Houseless people are there because there’s no political willpower to create systematic change to support them. So you’re absolutely right when you say:
we must either come up with new resources or reevaluate our investments in the resources we currently employ.
The only problem is the answer to this question is more often on the side of the investment not being worth it, so the problem is left unaddressed.
Not where I live. There are plenty of options for the homeless in my city, but we still have problems with homeless people taking up public space because they would rather be left alone and not address their problems.
Do you think I’m lying? Can you not empathize with this problem? Do you really think all homeless people flock to the resources available to them? None of them resort to vagrancy at all? Do you think the inventors of these bench features had steepled fingers and were like, “Let’s fuck these homeless MFers even harder!”?
Providing resources only goes so far. As a therapist, I can easily tell you that merely making help available does not guarantee the needy will come get help. Sometimes, you have to make it impossible for people to escape the consequences of their actions before they’ll do the work necessary to get better.
I’ve worked with hundreds of homeless people, usually trying to help them before the cops sweep their camp, or keeping their car rolling so they can keep living in it.
There was a ubiquitous set of conditions:
can’t afford housing even though they had a job.
lost identifying documents, usually in a sweep, and working on replacing them. You can’t get work without these.
no reliable postal address
no support network
I’ve never met anyone who wanted to be living on the street.
I’m not talking about crust punks train hopping. I’m talking about the people who missed a day of work for whatever reason and couldn’t make rent one month. Now they’re in a tent near available services because the shelter kicked them out after the max stay of a week.
Being a therapist gives you no expertise here and it seems to me that a therapist who sees punishment as a viable means for behavioral change is kind of shit at their job.
It sounds like wherever you are does not have adequate services for their homeless population. That’s a serious problem, and I would obviously advocate for the expansion of said services over sleep-prevention measures added to park benches.
But I am a therapist with experience working with homeless people, and contrary to what you apparently think, my experience does give me expertise on their lives. Where I live, they do have options. I’m sorry your state doesn’t serve its homeless population as well as mine. We can both agree that’s a bad thing. What we disagree on is that this simple park benches feature is/isn’t an “attack” on homeless people. I also hold the position that methadone clinics are a disservice to opioid addicts—due to my extensive experience with that population who are still addicted to opioids, and whose methadone clinics actively encourage them to remain on methadone rather than titrate off of it. Are you going to tell me that being against that is an “attack” on heroin addicts?
I’m sorry you’ve had the experiences you’ve had, but my position is entirely defensible, and you haven’t presented me with any evidence to the contrary. Moreover, your contention that I’m a “bad” therapist speaks volumes about your naïveté regarding my profession.
You’re stupid if you think this is the effect anti-homeless architecture is having in the places it’s being implemented. They have very little impact to begin with. I don’t pretend to think that shelters can’t be improved, but if people refuse to utilize the resources we have, we must either come up with new resources or reevaluate our investments in the resources we currently employ.
Imagine trying to spin anti-homeless architecture as pro-homeless.
“Welcome! What brings you to the homeless shelter today?”
“Well, it’s that bench. You see, I was choosing the unhoused lifestyle, and I was fine with all the other stigma and physical discomforts, until I realized that the city wants to discourage my presence in public spaces. Fuck these armrests, I decided I’d just come to this shelter, get treatment for my addiction, get counseling for my traumatic past that fed the addiction, get an education, get a job, rent a house, save money, then buy a home instead. It’s just not worth trying to get comfy on that bench.”
Hey maybe I’m stupid too, but it seems to me it’d be way fucking easier and cheaper to just put some flyers in a little letterbox attached to the bench advertising the nearest homeless shelter or something, rather than inconveniencing literally everyone who wants to use the bench. But what do I know, I’m probably just stupid
Flyers wouldn’t prevent homeless people from using the bench as a bed, preventing other people from using it for its intended purpose, and would be almost entirely ignored.
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using? Also, I’m sure there are other more attention grabbing options than a flyer, if we use our imaginations a little bit. Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
If the homeless person was just sitting on the bench, it wouldn’t be an issue. The bench features we’re talking about aren’t designed to prevent people from sitting on them; they’re designed to prevent people from lying down on them comfortably, thereby taking up more space and using the bench for a purpose it was not intended.
You chided me for calling someone else stupid, so I’m trying to be nicer, but I honestly don’t feel like I should have to explain this to you.
As I’ve said in other comments, I support outreach attempts as well. My focus is on this prevention technique because it’s the topic of the thread.
What difference does to make if someone is sitting on the bench, laying down, standing, crouching, or in any other comfortable resting position? It’s a public bench, to be used by the public however they see fit, as long as they’re not causing harm.
It’s weird to enforce the “correct” usage of a public bench, or the “correct” amount of space a person is allowed to take up, especially with such drastic elements that you yourself admit are not very effective.
It’s a political problem. Houseless people are there because there’s no political willpower to create systematic change to support them. So you’re absolutely right when you say:
The only problem is the answer to this question is more often on the side of the investment not being worth it, so the problem is left unaddressed.
Not where I live. There are plenty of options for the homeless in my city, but we still have problems with homeless people taking up public space because they would rather be left alone and not address their problems.
Do you think I’m lying? Can you not empathize with this problem? Do you really think all homeless people flock to the resources available to them? None of them resort to vagrancy at all? Do you think the inventors of these bench features had steepled fingers and were like, “Let’s fuck these homeless MFers even harder!”?
Providing resources only goes so far. As a therapist, I can easily tell you that merely making help available does not guarantee the needy will come get help. Sometimes, you have to make it impossible for people to escape the consequences of their actions before they’ll do the work necessary to get better.
I’ve worked with hundreds of homeless people, usually trying to help them before the cops sweep their camp, or keeping their car rolling so they can keep living in it.
There was a ubiquitous set of conditions:
I’ve never met anyone who wanted to be living on the street.
I’m not talking about crust punks train hopping. I’m talking about the people who missed a day of work for whatever reason and couldn’t make rent one month. Now they’re in a tent near available services because the shelter kicked them out after the max stay of a week.
Being a therapist gives you no expertise here and it seems to me that a therapist who sees punishment as a viable means for behavioral change is kind of shit at their job.
It sounds like wherever you are does not have adequate services for their homeless population. That’s a serious problem, and I would obviously advocate for the expansion of said services over sleep-prevention measures added to park benches.
But I am a therapist with experience working with homeless people, and contrary to what you apparently think, my experience does give me expertise on their lives. Where I live, they do have options. I’m sorry your state doesn’t serve its homeless population as well as mine. We can both agree that’s a bad thing. What we disagree on is that this simple park benches feature is/isn’t an “attack” on homeless people. I also hold the position that methadone clinics are a disservice to opioid addicts—due to my extensive experience with that population who are still addicted to opioids, and whose methadone clinics actively encourage them to remain on methadone rather than titrate off of it. Are you going to tell me that being against that is an “attack” on heroin addicts?
I’m sorry you’ve had the experiences you’ve had, but my position is entirely defensible, and you haven’t presented me with any evidence to the contrary. Moreover, your contention that I’m a “bad” therapist speaks volumes about your naïveté regarding my profession.