this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
126 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2244 readers
8 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Senate Bill 6231 defines hostile architecture as “elements designed to restrict the use of public spaces by individuals experiencing homelessness.” (A PDF of the original bill can be viewed here.)

In the past, those elements have included fencing, large boulders and gravel. If the elements are erected specifically “to prevent people from sitting or lying at street” level, they would be prohibited.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chloyster 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A good move that is in pretty stark contrast to the current Seattle leadership's goals. Glad people on the state level are trying something here though

[–] Vodulas 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Harrell is super anti-homeless. Sadly that sentiment is spilling over into neighboring cities. I am in Burien and it is the same here. They hired a encampment sweeping company with some sketchy contracts and everything

[–] MrAlex 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hello fellow Burienite! Don't forget they also made a second dog park to retroactively justify sweeping the encampment. "We would like, totally help you by offering resources, but we really need a place for our dogs to shit. Sorry about not having a roof over your head or whatever..." And in the next breath "hey everyone, we need this park sooooo bad but we can't afford to build it. Can you spare some change?" Fucking disgusting.

[–] Vodulas 2 points 9 months ago

Hello fellow Burienite!

Waves There are like 3 of us here!

But yup, the director of Burien CARES is super corrupt

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 17 points 9 months ago

Can we ban 'skate stoppers' intended to physically injure skaters who attempt the feature too?

Like, if it's designed from the start to not be super skateable that's fine. But adding things after the spot is already established that will cause people to 'catch' and fall seems a bit messed up.

[–] drwho 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just remember: Two sets of hex wrenches (USian and metric) will run you about $15us at the hardware store.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Would those get the rocks out?

[–] drwho 1 points 9 months ago

They're great for un-doing the bolts used to hold lots of stuff in place. Including rocks.

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

"No, your honor, we weren't trying to stop anyone from sitting or lying at street level, we have just become infatuated with neoarchitectural design, including spikes, cemented rocks, barbed wire, and other very-legitimate hyper-modern artistic design elements. We even paid an artist. The internal emails you subpoenaed will confirm all of this."

[–] jarfil 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

individuals experiencing homelessness

Geez, that sounds like such an interesting life experience... 😒

[–] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

What? Experiences can be both good and bad…

Edit: I see what you’re getting at now.

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I think they're trying to say that the language in reference is just pandering.

In my experience, a homeless guy doesn't give a single fuck if you call him homeless, unhoused, temporarily displaced, or a person experiencing homelessness. The bill itself is also quite tepid. While it does address some of the resultant effects of cruelty to the homeless, the actual cruelty itself remains, as well as the system that produced and perpetuates the conditions of homelessness in the first place.

~~Some will say "take wins where you can get them," but I would not call this a win at all. Might actually cause a backlash against the homeless population over there.~~

Edit: I no longer think my anxiety about backlash was justified in this instance. ~~Abhorrent~~ > Tepid

[–] alyaza 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Some will say “take wins where you can get them,” but I would not call this a win at all. Might actually cause a backlash against the homeless population over there.

being homeless is criminalized de facto in most Washington cities and if you polled the public on Hitlerite solutions to the problem a majority would likely agree with them. taking "this might cause a backlash" into consideration here is accordingly pointless; the backlash already exists and already actively informs policy for the worse. it's incumbent on people to fight back against that by pursuing better policy, of which this is one.

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz 4 points 9 months ago

the backlash already exists and already informs policy

I think you and I agree on this point, this is pretty much what I was saying with "the actual cruelty itself remains, as well as the system that produced and perpetuates the conditions of homelessness in the first place." I also re-read the bill to find "owned/operated by the city/county" where I previously misread something to the effect "within the city/county," and the correct reading does reduce my anxiety about backlash. And you're right, this would improve the sort-of "right to exist" in public spaces. Abhorrent was much too strong a word... More like... tepid.

I maintain the bill does not go nearly far enough, doing precisely nothing to address fundamental causes, but it might relieve some of the immense stress on those poor bastards, which is incontestably a good thing. I was wrong a moment ago, this is a "take your wins where you can get them" moment.