That would be weird if that's what she was wanting, but I don't think that's a fair assumption. Nowhere in the article does it say she's trying to force the city to throw the homeless out. It does say:
> Todd’s lawsuit accuses the city of allowing the encampment at the 101 overpass on Gower to remain for a “substantial amount of time,” creating dangerous conditions for pedestrians and drivers. The city also did not post signs warning drivers that there would be “excessive foot traffic” in the street due to the encampments, the lawsuit said.
She might be hoping that the city will move the homeless people elsewhere, put up signage, or possibly even come up with their own solution.
Maybe they would move elsewhere if people stop catering their food? I agree the city has a problem, but to me she exacerbates it (and OP on this thread seems to agree)
ahh the downvotes with no reply have begun, is this reddit now?
> Maybe they would move elsewhere if people stop catering their food? I agree the city has a problem, but to me she exacerbates it (and OP on this thread seems to agree)
What is an appropriate response? As an individual who cares about the homeless, you can want, and seek to force, the city to address the problem, but the large-scale remedies that can be pursued by local government are not available to you personally. Do you really think one would occupy a moral high ground by doing nothing, compared to trying at least to alleviate the suffering of the people who are stuck in this position that they don't want either?
(To put it differently, do you think that the homeless are there because it's the best possible place?)
I like that you're asking this question and we should all be asking it but I'm no expert and my opinion on the matter is uneducated at best. We should be demanding this of elected officials
> Do you really think one would occupy a moral high ground by doing nothing, compared to trying at least to alleviate the suffering of the people who are stuck in this position that they don't want either?
Thinking that ALL of these people don't want to be in this position is a dangerous assumption. To me there's different kinds of homeless people form those who have serious mental issues (thank you Reagan!) to those who are undergoing economic hardship (who should make their way to a shelter), drug addicts who will rob you for their next fix, etc. If you can't stand walking by and do nothing consider becoming a social worker and address the problem expertly
> (To put it differently, do you think that the homeless are there because it's the best possible place?)
I have moved around plenty but at every city I've lived in homeless shelters are available. The conditions were usually a curfew and no drugs; it seems fair to me
I hope my message isn't heartless, I just think there's nuance to helping people
> Todd’s lawsuit accuses the city of allowing the encampment at the 101 overpass on Gower to remain for a “substantial amount of time,” creating dangerous conditions for pedestrians and drivers. The city also did not post signs warning drivers that there would be “excessive foot traffic” in the street due to the encampments, the lawsuit said.
She might be hoping that the city will move the homeless people elsewhere, put up signage, or possibly even come up with their own solution.