Policies Against Homeless People
Previously I had never thought about the full extent of the policies against homeless people in urban/public areas; mostly because I come to a fairly small suburban area where I wasn’t quite exposed. However since moving to San Francisco, I have become more aware, but after reading through these documents, I realized I still was not aware enough.
From the Punishing the Poorest document I have learned the full extent to which homelessness is criminalized (particularly in San Francisco). The section line “Homeless people are forced to move by law enforcement for being in public” reminded me of when Super Bowl 50, when San Francisco created Super Bowl “city” in the area of the Embarcadero Plaza in front of the Ferry Building and connected to Market Street. All of these areas normally “house” homeless populations, but with the upcoming influx of tourists, and the area needing clearing for the Super Bowl “city” there were reports of homeless people being forced to move their tents and other belongings from the area; with no suitable alternatives for them to move to. I had not heard of this upheaval until after the Super Bowl city was gone, but I had never even questioned where the homeless …show more content…
had gone when I had been around the area during this time period.
This lack of suitable alternatives after they were being displaced connected with the information from Punishing the Poorest about the lack of connection to services, especially in regard to police, as well as the incarceration of the homeless.
The policies in place really do criminalize and enable to act on their prejudices against the homeless. These policies are not new, only reframed and rebranded. These “quality of life” laws, and how anti-homeless laws are placed under it, are truly just bullshit. To place one person’s (wealthy/housed/accepted) right to a “quality of life” over someone else’s (poor/homeless/discriminated) is truly disgusting. Especially as the policies disguise discrimination, prejudice, and bias behind the defense of “creating a better public
space.”
The Roadmap document paints a similar but slightly brighter picture, a factual account of the effects and characteristics of homeless families in San Francisco; but also some kind of plan to address these issues. In connection to the point made in Punishing the Poorest it does not make sense to not provide services for the homeless and is actually more costly for the municipal in general. The proposed plan in The Roadmap does lend to this idea and that it would be better economically, but more importantly, that this can provide stability for people who are vulnerable or can become vulnerable, especially with the type of anti-homeless and “quality of life” laws that are in place.
I think I need to do more in depth research if there is any type of protections for homeless people have against being removed from public space. I know that there is such a thing as “squatter’s rights” but I believe that is over a much longer period of type. But, it would be interesting to see if there could be some kind of connection or some kind of idea on how to protect those who need it and are most vulnerable.
From the Punishing the Poorest document I have learned the full extent to which homelessness is criminalized (particularly in San Francisco). The section line “Homeless people are forced to move by law enforcement for being in public” reminded me of when Super Bowl 50, when San Francisco created Super Bowl “city” in the area of the Embarcadero Plaza in front of the Ferry Building and connected to Market Street. All of these areas normally “house” homeless populations, but with the upcoming influx of tourists, and the area needing clearing for the Super Bowl “city” there were reports of homeless people being forced to move their tents and other belongings from the area; with no suitable alternatives for them to move to. I had not heard of this upheaval until after the Super Bowl city was gone, but I had never even questioned where the homeless …show more content…
had gone when I had been around the area during this time period.
This lack of suitable alternatives after they were being displaced connected with the information from Punishing the Poorest about the lack of connection to services, especially in regard to police, as well as the incarceration of the homeless.
The policies in place really do criminalize and enable to act on their prejudices against the homeless. These policies are not new, only reframed and rebranded. These “quality of life” laws, and how anti-homeless laws are placed under it, are truly just bullshit. To place one person’s (wealthy/housed/accepted) right to a “quality of life” over someone else’s (poor/homeless/discriminated) is truly disgusting. Especially as the policies disguise discrimination, prejudice, and bias behind the defense of “creating a better public
space.”
The Roadmap document paints a similar but slightly brighter picture, a factual account of the effects and characteristics of homeless families in San Francisco; but also some kind of plan to address these issues. In connection to the point made in Punishing the Poorest it does not make sense to not provide services for the homeless and is actually more costly for the municipal in general. The proposed plan in The Roadmap does lend to this idea and that it would be better economically, but more importantly, that this can provide stability for people who are vulnerable or can become vulnerable, especially with the type of anti-homeless and “quality of life” laws that are in place.
I think I need to do more in depth research if there is any type of protections for homeless people have against being removed from public space. I know that there is such a thing as “squatter’s rights” but I believe that is over a much longer period of type. But, it would be interesting to see if there could be some kind of connection or some kind of idea on how to protect those who need it and are most vulnerable.