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.
Geez, that sounds like such an interesting life experience… 😒
What? Experiences can be both good and bad…
Edit: I see what you’re getting at now.
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> Tepidbeing 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.
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.