There is a book advocating for UBI, which detailed studies showing it is actually easier and cost effective to just give homeless people unconditional cash grants. Contrary to expectations, 9/10 homeless folks cleaned themselves and looked for accommodation.
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
266 points (98.9% liked)
politics
23551 readers
3244 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Every time I hear about this fuck I get more and more tempted to drive the 10 minutes from my parents house over to the governor's mansion and show him what happens when you ignore the will of your people (violent murder, if I wasn't fucking clear)
Boo!
Spending millions a day to shuffle around people instead of actually saving money by putting them in unoccupied homes.
Can't wait until the DNC picks him for me tells me this was actually a good thing, like platforming Charlie Kirk and Steve Banon, and saying trans people are actually disgusting with them.
"The politics of failure have failed."
WTF happened to this guy? Did he have a Fetterman stroke?
Nope, he's just a neoliberal chasing after the center.
The center between Hitler and Mussolini
He's gearing up for a presidential run, and I'm mostly sure that the DNC wants him for 2028; he's running hard to the right (not that he was ever really far left to start with, FOX made him sound way cooler than he ever was) so that they can try the "run a moderate Republican and see if we can win by peeling off a whole 6 republicans nationally and then shaming the tuned out base when we lose" strategy against Trump for a third time. There for a bit, I would have been pretty okay with voting for Gavin, but it's clear enough to me now as a CA resident that he's the clown prince of shitlibs and he's just desperately scrambling to try and pick up support from DOZENS of moderate republicans all over the country.
About the only thing he's done lately that I agree with is dedicating $1B/yr of California's carbon cap and trade program to CAHSR for the next fifty (I think it was fifty) years, which solves a HUGE problem that's been a big source of delays for CAHSR, which is the lack of predictable funding.
Dude is a terrible governor. He’s as reactionary and as stubborn as W.
IMHO, there is a fair amount of misinformation floating around this issue.
Newsom hasn’t been pushing to blindly kick people off the street with no where to go. The draft ordinance is about filling unfilled shelter beds.
So if you had 200 beds and 1000 unhoused people, Newsom wants to be able to clear enough encampments to get 200 people into shelters. Cities wouldn’t clear all the encampments, only enough to get close to filling the available beds.
And that said, that policy doesn’t really account for the fact that shelters can be pretty dangerous and worse than the streets. So although this policy sounds compassionate, it’s actually quite flawed.
shelters can be pretty dangerous and worse than the streets
That's troubling. What's the solution here?
Housing.
IMO, we should start by focusing the conversation on this issue so we can start to collect and socialize ideas.
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if we needed some sort of way to rigorously audit and report about shelter conditions. That way we could at least have policies that don’t blindly assume every bed is equal or safe.
So although this policy sounds compassionate, it’s actually quite flawed
That's an understatement the size of "Trump's tariffs might not make eggs cheaper"..
He’s trying to become POTUS and it is unlikely the DNC will select someone looking to make things better
He is now, and always was, a neoliberal. He just aligned himself to blue politics for a while.
Fascist.
I live in downtown Oakland. It’s grim. The city has been fencing off areas where people previously had tents. It’s very sad.
"Running to the right will work for me because I'm a white dude!"
Sounding a bit more like Trump bit by bit. Wtf.
bit by bit
That sounds like "a little" and "slowly"...
Pretty sure Newsom's swing to the right is pretty fair complete by now. He's basically full MAGAt, just managing to keep it somewhat low-key so far.
🤡 🖕
I'm still fuzzy on his reason though... Could be looking for a Presidential run in the near future...??? 🤔
Of course he is. He hasn't been trying to hide it
It’s not surprising, but it is disappointing. He’s showing his true allegiance, and it’s not to a political party. It’s to a socioeconomic class, and that socioeconomic class is “rich people”.
Newsom is just another rich worm who got into politics. Frankly speaking if our recalls weren't fucking braindead he'd probably have been kicked to the curb by now.
Freedom^TM
Does anyone have a source for the 72 hour thing?
I don’t see it in the draft ordinance. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Encampment-Ordinance-formatted.pdf
The draft ordinance basically says that, if there are available beds, a city can clear a campsite if they give people 48 hours notice and direct people to the available shelter beds.
Although, this ordinance does not address the fact that many shelters cause more harm than good. People are on the street because it’s safer for their wellbeing and belongings. No one seems to be talking about this.
Enabling shitty behavior from both Democrats and Republicans is what got the United States in this mess to begin with
Yeah. I'm torn.
On one hand, I've seen what happens when homeless people, especially the worst of them, take over a public space without supervision. It is not hyperbole to say they destroy the area. The massive homeless camps in downtown Denver featured needles, excrement, unwashed clothing, and, in two instances I personally witnessed, a fire that tore through the area, destroying the homeless camp and risking damage to everything around. I get that we need to do better on housing all around and support the various proposals (such as homeless communities, repurposing abandoned buildings, etc), but there has to be an element of enforcement, including disallowing camping in areas not specifically purposed for camping, ensuring that people move on, and forced relocations, if for no other purpose than to address buildups of trash and vermin (to be clear: rats, not the people, I'm not calling homeless vermin 🙄 ). And IMO, a key component of this is funding a public healthcare program that addresses mental illness, such as Proposition 1 in California. This is good because addressing mental illness can lead to reduced drug abuse, which is a major cause of homelessness.
But on the other, what Newsom is doing is using tricks right out of the Trump playbook by demanding that cities and counties adopt policies they do not wish to implement to share in the funding that would make homelessness go down. I also notice that there are no requirements for carrots, only sticks. I.E. no demand that supervised camping sites be set up, or empty buildings bought up and repurposed as housing. Just the requirement that you're unwelcome in public places if you're unhoused, and that the law will be brought against you if you dare persist in the same place for 4 days in a row, no matter how much you take care of that space. Seems like he's working to appeal to the Right? "See, I can be as heartless and cruel as any Republican!" Makes me less inclined to vote for him.
Homeless people are human beings. If we housed them, and had a proper social safety net, we wouldn't even be talking about it's. Homeless or not, they need a place to live.
I agree with you. That's why I pointed out that the only mandate was enforcement, aka, the stick, and no incentives, aka carrots, were required. If Newsom was serious about tackling this, the enforcement would be paired with incentives, and the cities would be getting help to set up alternatives to camping in public places, such as the supervised camping we use here in my neck of the woods.
But let's be clear. You still need the stick. It's perfectly OK to say "We'll do everything we can to get you off the streets, but you need to put in the effort yourself, and no, trashing public spaces is not an option."
No, we are not in agreement. I don't not think we should force people from where they live. You wouldn't need this so called "enforcement" if people had access to a safe bed. And if we don't have that, then these tent cities happen, and in my opinion we should do literally nothing about them being there.
There will be people who will, despite having the option to be moved into housing, refuse to move there because they prefer the freedom of panhandling for money, getting drunk and stoned, and being nuisances to people around them. If you think they should not be dealt with, then yes, we don't agree, and you're just as bad as the people that say no help for the homeless and just want them swept away. There is a reasonable position, and it's not either your position or Newsom's position.
Right...showing your prejudice. Just as i thought. Getting drunk and stoned is not the cause of homelessness. You're just blaming the homeless for a problem they didn't create. Funny how we never had a homeless problem back before housing prices started ballooning. Hell, go back to the early 19th century, and basically everyone had a place to live, even if it wasn't a great place to live.
...showing your prejudice...
Yeah. You got me. I'm prejudiced against the idea that people can do what they want, without consequence. How heartless of me, eh? Make it difficult for me to remain civil to you, why don't you?
Here's the difference between you, AnalogNotDigital, and me: You both have staked out opposite but equally extremist ends. Let me reduce your position to its core principles.
People should be allowed to do what they want, when they want, without any consequence for their actions.
No. No, a thousand times no. I am not going to sit by and let people walk over me, because I've already dealt enough with people walking over me. I have to get up and do my 9 to 5 every weekday, and moderate my drug and alcohol use to a level that I can function in my job, to keep a roof over my head and food on the table. In no world will "in my opinion we should do literally nothing about them being there" be a valid option to tent cities with rampant drug and alcohol use.
To make this more stark, you engage in the same duplicitous and dishonest debate tactics the Right uses. Because of course if I want accountability for people, I must want homeless people starving in the streets. Let me make this clear for you. I want housing to be available to everyone. Said so multiple times, in fact, in this thread alone. But that housing needs to be contingent on people getting clean and becoming productive members of society to the extent their clean selves can be. I do not support any demand that unhoused people be swept in order to partake of Proposition 1 funding. That's what I expressed in my second paragraph. I guess you skipped that in your rush to attack me for my first paragraph.
News flash, pal. I stand by what I said in that first paragraph. You do not have a right to society subsidising your drug and alcohol habit. You DO have a right to housing, but that right has a responsibility of putting your labour in for society. Your access to transitional housing should be contingent on you getting clean if you have a drug or alcohol problem. It should be clear that the alternative you are proposing, living a drugged, drunk life in a vermin-filled tent on public space, is not an option. If you put the effort in, we give you the carrot of subsidised housing to allow you to get back on your feet and make your way into the workforce. If you decide that's too much effort, then the stick comes out until you rethink your bad decision and go after the carrot. That's been my position all along, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth and bald-faced lying (no homelessness in the 19th century?! History lessons for you). No solution is complete without both the carrot and the stick, because people are jerks and will take advantage of you the first chance they get. There are jerks who are looking to take advantage of homeless people with the Stick Only approach. Then there are gullible fools who will be taken advantage of by some homeless people because they want the Carrot Only approach. I'm advocating for both because I want to minimise being taken advantage here, and you're accusing me of being ... prejudiced and making bald-faced lies that only need a tiny bit of research.
So, in the spirit of launching personal attacks, I see your prejudiced accusation and call you both naive and an asshole. Good day, sir.
Good talk, glad we sorted that out.
load more comments
(13 replies)
I watched what I assume was a meth lab burn the underpass of a major bridge near my apartment in 2023. Then just a couple weeks ago, only a few days away from the two-year anniversary, it happened again.
We need to support people. Otherwise, we will vilify them. The sad fact is, this is a result of decades of destruction, and there doesn’t seem to be any willpower to do the hard thing anymore.
It’s enough to make you want to walk into the ocean.
load more comments
(15 replies)
He's also giving more funding to services that help the homeless so they can get back on their feet and get a home, right?
... Right?
view more: next ›