Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
My thought is I don't support making spaces less desirable to for all just to keep out a small subset. I do support however things like increase security or whatever to help mitigate actual issues. Some homeless guy sitting on a bench or even asking people who walk by for spare change, who cares. Aggressive panhandling or an addict shooting up in a restroom however needs to be controlled tightly.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk
I think it is nothing less than a tragedy when public amenities are hardened or removed because they're abused by vagrants, junkies and perverts. I would prefer instead to make the area absolutely inhospitable to them with an aggressive police presence.
|
My problem is that it often seems that people can't tell the difference between the two groups. The vast majority of homeless are decent people deserving of respect and support. They're more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. Yet it sometimes seems that rich, entitled, secure folks view every scruffy vagrant as the first wave of a zombie horde.
I know a rich white doctor from Lakeview who stopped riding her bike to the Foothills due to fear of "sketchy" people around the pumphouse theatre. That kind of fear is simply ignorant classism and racism and it's as big a problem in our city as actual vagrancy. Making the inner city livable for everybody has to deal with all the assholes, rich and poor.