imbecile, using it is more suffering than not using it, otherwise guess what: they would--look what this mentality gets you!
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
okay and what about the suffering of the neighbors? Do they just not matter? What about the sudden influx of vagrants into a previously undisturbed community? People tend to be homeless for a reason, likely mental disorders or drug use that this man cannot manage
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thelastman07
dude we have plenty of homeless in my city and I take the bus to work and deal with them every day: I'm not a fan. But they are *already* here and *already* make neighbors suffer even w/o a guy playing host. I'd rather they all have somewhere to be which they'll actually go to.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @thelastman07
If this man can't manage them, he'll figure that out, and the city will be back to square one (Akron isn't exactly a lovely place to begin with--lotta desperation there from what I can tell). If he can, so much the better for everyone except the immediately adjacent houses.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
They can be arrested for loitering, being drunk in public, and a myriad of other crimes when in public spaces. You set a horrible precedent by allowing emotions to sway you in this case because you just know NGOs will set up legal "safe houses" to ruin previously nice areas
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thelastman07
This isn't about emotions, it's about pragmatism: arresting people for nuisance stuff like that never puts them away for good, and rarely puts them away for more than a night. Then they're right back at it again. I see it every day: I would 100% prefer someone take them in
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @thelastman07
As for NGO "safe houses" what exactly do you think shelters are? Do you think people don't oppose those too? I don't ultimately care where they stay so long as they're off the street: if shelters can't accomplish this, I don't see a problem with letting a volunteer try instead
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Because of zoning. Certain areas are zone that only a set number of people can live in a square acreage. Do you want New Dehli in the suburbs and rural areas of America? If you can't fix a problem then you keep it contained.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thelastman07
Ya funny story, the expenses that zoning laws add to homeownership and renting are a huge factor in why so many people can't get a place to live in the first place. Allow smaller houses, closer together--you can go pretty far in that direction w/o turning into India
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
Yeah maybe in a white community but do you forget that we are only 60% of the population and dropping? Also why is packing people together so long as they have a roof over their head desirable? I don't know about you but I greatly prefer space between me and my neighbor.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
So get space between you and your neighbor! Why should other people wander the streets instead of having a roof over their head just because they'll be living in a smaller place than you?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.