So you would prefer that there is no shelter and more benches for homeless children?
I think the message is perfectly clear, and people online are just looking for reasons to be upset (not that they would do something about it, just posting angrily).
I would prefer shelter and no anti-homeless architecture. But I get that you prefer anti-homeless architecture and no shelter, since we’re being uncharitable.
So you would prefer that there is no shelter and more benches for homeless children?
I think the message is perfectly clear, and people online are just looking for reasons to be upset (not that they would do something about it, just posting angrily).
I would prefer shelter and no anti-homeless architecture. But I get that you prefer anti-homeless architecture and no shelter, since we’re being uncharitable.
I live in a country where if you don’t have a job the government will pay for your rent and utilities, indefinitely.
Additionally, I have a deal with them as well: If they don’t sleep on the benches I will not sit in their beds. Works wonders.
Well, good for you. I live in a country that doesn’t. I live in a country where your perspective is classist and callous.
You forgot racist. Everything you don’t like is racist.
Keep raging at the people trying to solve the problem while you do nothing.
I did not. Though now I suspect you hear it a lot.
hostile architecture is not a solution.
No, shelters are.
So hostile architecture is unnecessary.
It solves a different problem.