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.
A good move that is in pretty stark contrast to the current Seattle leadership’s goals. Glad people on the state level are trying something here though
Harrell is super anti-homeless. Sadly that sentiment is spilling over into neighboring cities. I am in Burien and it is the same here. They hired a encampment sweeping company with some sketchy contracts and everything
Hello fellow Burienite! Don’t forget they also made a second dog park to retroactively justify sweeping the encampment. “We would like, totally help you by offering resources, but we really need a place for our dogs to shit. Sorry about not having a roof over your head or whatever…” And in the next breath “hey everyone, we need this park sooooo bad but we can’t afford to build it. Can you spare some change?” Fucking disgusting.
Hello fellow Burienite!
Waves There are like 3 of us here!
But yup, the director of Burien CARES is super corrupt
Can we ban ‘skate stoppers’ intended to physically injure skaters who attempt the feature too?
Like, if it’s designed from the start to not be super skateable that’s fine. But adding things after the spot is already established that will cause people to ‘catch’ and fall seems a bit messed up.
Just remember: Two sets of hex wrenches (USian and metric) will run you about $15us at the hardware store.
Would those get the rocks out?
They’re great for un-doing the bolts used to hold lots of stuff in place. Including rocks.
“No, your honor, we weren’t trying to stop anyone from sitting or lying at street level, we have just become infatuated with neoarchitectural design, including spikes, cemented rocks, barbed wire, and other very-legitimate hyper-modern artistic design elements. We even paid an artist. The internal emails you subpoenaed will confirm all of this.”
deleted by creator
well, these aren’t mutually exclusive—and anti-homeless architecture is very harmful to everyone, not just the homeless. it often strips public spaces of amenities like benches, bathrooms, or even just any space in which you could conceivably loiter for fear that that they’ll be used by the “undeserving”
deleted by creator
individuals experiencing homelessness
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> TepidSome 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.
being 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.
the backlash already exists and already informs policy
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.
