ShivaX
2796
Uh…
Like I don’t even know where to start on this. I’m sure the optics of arresting men of the cloth is going to be great for them though. And then the judiciary bitch slapping them afterwards. But at least they’ll have the worst PR possibly ever and everyone across the entire political spectrum will also hate them with burning passion.
Maybe. People hate the homeless in a very NIMBY way, so they could be all for it despite any love for men of the cloth.
Skipper
2798
I mean, how many Karens does it take that the council voted that way. I must be missing something here.
This is literally feeding the homeless/needy.
Man I swear to god some of these Christian-in-name-only fuckers need to experience more hardship.
Yeah, it’s like Section 8 housing. A lot of people might be ok with it, but don’t you dare allow it in their neighborhood.
CraigM
2800
Brookings is a heavily Republican coastal town in southern Oregon.
It is also tiny as shit, despite being the largest town in the county, at only 6,300 people.
Yeah this is being driven by a bunch of GOPistians, probably from a rival church.
Yes, apparently none of the people on the city council has actually paid any attention to whatever religious instruction they were given, because pretty much everyone from the Satanists to Pentecostals is down with feeding the hungry. Ok, maybe Scientology isn’t. Are they all Scientologists?
Everyone wants to feed the hungry, but they don’t want it done in their neighborhood. That goes double for businesses because customers typically stay away from sketchy neighborhoods.
As much as it sucks to say neighborhoods with a lot of homeless folks hanging around turn sketchy really quickly.
Timex
2803
I know folks who actually work, professionally, with the homeless in Seattle, but even they are having major problems at this point due to the complete ineptitude of the government to deal with the problem.
There’s a fine line between not needlessly harassing and persecuting people who are homeless, and enabling bad situations that don’t benefit anyone by refusing to enforce any laws at all. Not only does the complete withdraw create “sketchy” situations as Telefrog mentions, but the larger homeless camps are so unsafe that it’s very difficult to do normal outreach to try and help people in them. And “normal outreach” was never a safe thing anyway.
But I don’t think allowing churches to feed the homeless is one of those enabling factors.
Yeah, to be clear, I’m for it and this restriction is lame. I’m pretty sure the homeless would be in those areas regardless.
Enidigm
2805
The US system is the worst of both worlds with homelessness - a system of self reliance / independence that values agency over health, and so there are tons of laws that prevent states and cities from simply rounding up homeless people and putting them in shelters. Except that in most states those shelters don’t exist anyway. And in many states the homeless population is significantly / majority mentally ill, and there’s basically no process / money to deal with the mentally ill, and so everyone just stares and doesn’t know what to do, so they kick the homeless off the corner and hope it just goes away.
Timex
2806
The problem they have in places like Seattle isn’t that they’re not arresting homeless people for being homeless… it’s that they’re not arresting people for breaking laws, because they are homeless. Somehow, being homeless amounts to a get out of jail free card.
But then at the same time, the SPD is cool with beating random people for no reason at all… Like, they will use excessive force, unless they know you are homeless, then they will just ignore you! It’s seemingly the worst possible method of policing.
Enidigm
2807
The one thing that strikes me about today is that we don’t know how to build societies anymore.
Texas is a “land grant” state, which means it’s universities are funded by the sale of public lands; in reality it means they’re funded by oil and gas, because the value of those lands were realized hundred+ years ago but the state retained the minerals. But Texas also had tons of land sales for other smaller educational priorities; eventually there were “County X School Lands” sold all over the public domain of Texas to fund schools in new counties. But they also created “eleemosynary” lands. Lands sold for orphans, mentally ill, and “deaf dumb and or blind” persons. Even Texas 100 years ago understood that a state had to have facilities suffering various maladies, not just for themselves but for the betterment of society.
It feels like the “consensus” view of society broke sometime around the 60s, and it’s just been take what you can get since then. There’s just not a sense that we share much of anything anymore. Conesrvatives especially seem to feel that America today is just a bunch of people living together with nothing in common, so they’re especially unwilling to fund a common good that don’t believe in or even recognize. But liberals also have a hard time funding things rationally, especially when the wealth of liberal agenda is being funneled through the libertarian minded, “new model” / there’s an app for that, Tech Industry. The average liberal has a hard time with paternalistic solutions.
Holy shit, a billionaire is providing funding to build the mega dorm that he himself designed (and he’s not an architect), with the provision that the plans cannot be altered or else no money.
It’s a goddamn prison.
The university’s architect resigned in protest, and the university is like, “too bad, we want that money, full speed ahead.”
This also seems like a damn deathrap
“Munger Hall, in comparison, is a single block housing 4,500 students with two entrances,” McFadden said, and would qualify as the eighth densest neighborhood on the planet, falling just short of Dhaka, Bangladesh. It would be able to house Princeton University’s entire undergraduate population, or all five Claremont Colleges. “The project is essentially the student life portion of a mid-sized university campus in a box,” he said.
So that’s what Charlie Munger has been up to?
Vanity and senility are a bad combo
So the 97 year old billionaire thinks that stuffing the students into these would force them to spend time in the common area, and that’s a benefit. He may be right about the common area being a benefit, but the life experience in those rooms sounds pretty bad.
Of course the college dorm rooms I had in the '70’s were spartan compared to what students get today from what I’ve seen. We had one window at least.
That’s more space and privacy than I had in my dorm…
That building floor plan looks more like CPU or GPU schematics than a livable space.
Weird that funding 1/7th of the cost gives him total control.
When you’re really rich, you get to use other people as subjects for your personal hobby experiments.
