Monday, October 03, 2016

Having solved all of California's other problems, Governor Brown signs a bill on unisex bathrooms...

You'd expect this kind of story AFTER the election.

//New York City is often a trendsetter of urban life and culture. But when it comes to the proliferation of homeless on the streets, Gotham may be following others’ leads.

And so, if we look in the right places, we can get a glimpse of the Ghost of New York Future.

Take San Francisco. Seven months ago, when New Yorkers Byrne and Pamela Hobart relocated there for Byrne’s job, the plan was to make San Francisco their permanent home. And then they encountered “the couch.”

The couch was on the curb in front of their building. It was covered in trash and empty bottles of alcohol and often featured people camped out on it. Pamela contacted the city’s 311. After an investigation, she was told, the case of the couch had been solved.

The verdict? The couch was private property — of the homeless who slept on it.

The Hobarts are in the process of moving back to New York City.

New York isn’t this far gone — yet. A couch in the middle of the sidewalk probably wouldn’t be considered the private property of the homeless people who sleep on it. But are we heading in that direction?//


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Most of the homeless in San Francisco (in fact, the vast majority) are mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or both. There are so many in San Francisco because the government and social institutions there attempt to take care of such people in such straits and thereby attract more of such people from the surrounding geographic area, something other cities are happy to oblige since they contribute little to the welfare of these people who can't help themselves.

So, what is the Peter Bradley unrepentant neo-conservative, Catholic, pro-western civilization bias plan for dealing with the homeless mentality ill drug addicts? Because if you'd prefer they chuck these people out of San Francisco, and I'm sure Fresno and north-central Fresno County will be happy to take its additional fair share of the mentally ill who are addicted to drugs to "house" on its streets.


"Are there no prisons? . . . And the Union workhouses. demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol

Lauran said...

“Most of the homeless" in every city in the US are “mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or both.” Are you serious? Do you think you’re enlightening anyone?? And some of those homeless are drifters--who rob and steal and murder--and actually belong in prison.

But the point here--and, of course, you missed it--is that signing a bill on uni-sex restrooms isn’t going to serve the homeless in San Francisco by any stretch of the imagination, is it? At least in a workhouse, they’d have a roof over their heads, which is more than Brown is offering.

Now, Scrooge would probably have advocated abortion since he’d figure coming from poverty, they’ likely wind up poor and useless themselves so, actually, you have much more in common with Scrooge than with Peter Bradley who probably donates far more to the poor than you do.

But putting aside Governor Brown's or Peter Bradley’s efforts for the homeless--what have you done lately for them? What are you offering the homeless?

Anonymous said...

Lauran:
I've decided to have my own blog and use it to demonize the mentally ill / drug addicted and to troll other blogs and post comments demonizing the mentally ill and homeless. I figure that would be the best way to help people in such desperate straights given my conservative and Catholic bias.

By the way, in response to your comment that "some of those homeless are drifters--who rob and steal and murder--and actually belong in prison:" I would suspect if you are a homeless person who isn't mentally ill or addicted to drugs but instead "rob," "steal," and "murder," you get sent to prison pretty quick. I've also heard somewhere that many Mexican are rapists and murderers, so perhaps "prison" is the answer for all the Mexicans as well.

Anonymous said...

Lauran said:
"But the point here--and, of course, you missed it--is that signing a bill on uni-sex restrooms isn’t going to serve the homeless in San Francisco by any stretch of the imagination, is it? At least in a workhouse, they’d have a roof over their heads, which is more than Brown is offering."

Hmmm, I think the bill will help women more than anyone else. What the bill does is require that single-use bathrooms (i.e. those only one person can use at a time) are to be for both sexes, not designated for only one sex to use. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and I'm baffled by what that has to do with the homeless problem anywhere. But as I understand it from Lauran, I'm only a termite and a flea and by thinking there's nothing wrong with this I'm debating and degrading our culture.

Wow, "At least in a workhouse . . ." The Republicans should use that as a campaign statement. I guess "making America great again" involves a return to the days when "at least in a workhouse" you have a roof over your head. Good luck with that.

Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs.

 
Who links to me?