• Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I didn’t mean give them public lands, but more recreate large common spaces for people to be able to be somewhat sufficient.

    Also did you city try collecting their waste?

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That sounds like a distinction without a difference, unless you are saying that in addition to land, they should also provide infrastructure for them on top.

      Also did you city try collecting their waste?

      I don’t think so, at least the last time I passed by there it was still all there. But just so we’re clear what you’re asking, picture about an acre of medium density forest land with a good 100 or so people living in makeshift tents or huts. And there’s trash literally everywhere — some of it piled up in heaps, some strewn about in the bushes, and it smells like a landfill on a hot summer day.

      You would probably need a hazmat team to get rid of all that because there might be used needles, rotten food, or who knows what else in there, and more likely than not, someone would end up making a scene because some of their belongings ended up in the trash because they looked virtually indistinguishable from refuse.

      It simply isn’t reasonable to demand or expect that others should take the time out of their day and clean up your mess when they’re already doing you a favor by tolerating you being there in the first place. These are grown people, not infants. If there isn’t at least an indication of goodwill and demonstrated intent to collaborate (such as them perhaps getting together and organizing their own cleanup effort, for which the city could provide trash bags and a truck to pick them up), there’s no amount of free stuff you can give them that’ll ever make them self-sufficient.