Mildly Infuriating

I kinda get it to an extent. I've had friends that lived in a bar district that couldn't get out of their door because the same guy set up shop on their stoop every morning. They tried to convince him to just move to the side leaving them enough room to get in and out without trying to step over him. They tried to get him to work with services to help but he had no f's left to give. He peed there, never crapped there, though. I do wonder where he went to do that.

The right answer is to properly support, help, and house the homeless, and a city with the wherewithall to maintain a park could definitely make a dent on that.

And it's not even just the homeless who are affect by shit like this. I can't tell you how many park benches I slept on in my twenties when I lived in Europe and I'd stay out too late and have to chill out somewhere until morning.

In America you can't take a nap in your car or even read a book in your car without having the cops hassle you.

I wonder what the cops are going to do when all vehicles are driverless.

Just so you know, if a cop ever catches you with lock picks, depending on the jurisdiction, they may try to arrest you for possession of lock picks with intent to burglarize (in the US, at least). Not saying you shouldn’t - but be mindful of what the potential legal hazards are in the worst case.

Its a masterlock you don't even need a pick.

"its putting your head in the sand, kicking the can down the road" policy, no intention of alleviating it. probably gives reason for certain politicians to get elected. our region started doing something to the homeless in an area of our city(sweeping leo prescence, especially when world event/conferences are around) and they immediately move near the WFoods where i frequent, and they are robbing it blind(because store policy is not even to approach or give them customer service). when before they were more spread out and congregate in an area, that they dont stray far from causing "less" problems.

The cruelty is the point. They'll say a homeless person doesn't deserve a fee hundred bucks a month to get back on their feet, but they'll spend 100 grand a year per person to make them more miserable. It's just good job security (and satisfaction) for the police unions.

Cruelty is definitely a big part of it but also NIMBYism. If we don't see the homeless people, we don't have to think about them and try to find solutions.

Yes, I really can't wrap my way around their way of thinking.

There are people who have such big issues in life, and such bad options, that a bench in a park is their best option for a place to sleep. That is horrible, and something must be done. And politicians think removing their best option is a solution?

If people can show enough compassion to invest in getting these people back on their feet, if you are really just going to ignore them - at least to that. Let them be.

If we're talking drunk people causing issues, and they need to learn to go home instead - then I'd get it. Not my preferred solution, but I'd get it.

Why spend money on housing them when you can instead (i assume) employ someone to keep to anti-homeless benches on schedule and pay consultants extraorbitant fees to help you design anti-homeless parks

It's a master lock, it won't give you as much practice time as you hope.

Only if you're the lawyer, everyone else needs to put a little force behind the blade of grass