How does this make sense?
Like what the fuck is the reasoning? Do they think if they can’t see homeless people, they won’t be homeless anymore?
They don’t care about the homeless so they don’t care that those poor people will still be homeless somewhere else. The rich just no longer have to see the unhoused -out of sight out of mind- as they say. Then since they’re now out of mind, they don’t have to fix or offer viable solutions for homelessness. The rich hope those poor people die as they’re deemed morally terrible people who are there directly because of their own failings. Plus it makes more slave labor available for today’s private prisons across the nation.
It’s almost impossible for politicians to confront their masters profiting from the housing crisis (eg. landlords, capital). But it’s extremely easy and self-satisfying for them to demonize and violently attack their victims.
They want to fill for profit prisons with homeless people. Then they have slave labor. Folks in California should vote out that shit governor you have and send him packing.
Unfortunately he is gearing up for his presidential run in 2028.
Just remember both sides are the same when it comes to how they treat the less fortunate.
I think most people in California support the crackdown. California tried the compassionate approach for many years, but we are sick of seeing meth heads in our downtowns. From the article, these people are being offered shelter beds and are refusing them. They are turning down help. There has to be a limit.
You sound like hateful person. Not every homeless person is drug addict. Wages are so low in California and home prices and rent are way out of reach for majority of Californians.