@ISIDEWITHQuestionsHousing Issues3yrs ago

Should homeless individuals, that have refused available shelter or housing, be allowed to sleep or encamp on public property?

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1k Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira voters.

33%
Yes
67%
No
23%
Yes
65%
No
9%
Yes, and create more social programs to provide free food, clothing, and medicine
3%
No, and make it a criminal offense

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 1k Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1k Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @93P5SDGanswered…3yrs3Y

Depends of the encamp or public property, but yes.

 @99YHSG4answered…2yrs2Y

The provider of u.s with ok parents an foods decrease criminal and affordable excuse problems

 @99VG4N4answered…2yrs2Y

If they pay for that or make a kind of good job they can stay there

 @98PM34Tanswered…2yrs2Y

No, but housings made for homeless people should be free and of decent quality.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Homeless Encampments” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Drug Crisis Prompts Portland to Reboot City Government

In a sign of either hope or desperation, Portland voters decided to throw out their entire government structure and replace it with a weaker mayor, expanded City Council and ranked choice voting.A major driving factor was the passage of “Measure 110” decriminalizing all drugs in 2020, which was backed by 74 percent of Multnomah County’s residents. Voters couldn’t — or at least didn’t — anticipate how this policy change would reshape a city already strapped for money, dealing with a public health crisis and confronting rising rates of homelessness and fentanyl abuse.Drug use shot up, homelessness worsened and taxpayers fled.“Political rhetoric in 2020-2021 in the City of Portland was incredibly ideologically driven,” Gonzalez said, explaining that there was a “default conversation” on topics like homelessness or police reform that shut down an exchange of ideas.The City Council race, meanwhile, is mayhem. Portland is switching from four at-large seats to twelve seats representing four districts. The dozens of candidates include Black Lives Matter leaders, nonprofit advocates, business owners and police officers.There are 19 people running for mayor and 98 people seeking seats on the City Council. They’re nearly all campaigning on left-of-center platforms — this is Portland.Pandemic closures, protests, elevated crime rates and rising homelessness buffeted many liberal cities in recent years, including San Francisco and Minneapolis. But policy choices made by the city and state aggravated their impact in Portland.The ramifications are measurable: Nearly 12,000 people moved out of Multnomah County between 2020 and 2023, per data from Portland State University. The exodus between 2020 and 2021 alone took nearly $1.1 billion in taxable income out of the city, according to data analyzed by the Economic Innovation Group. Portland’s once bustling downtown is nearly empty, and a negative national reputation clouds its economic future.Drug decriminalization and the city’s open camping rules compounded the feeling of insecurity. Homeless encampments spread through empty public spaces and filled sidewalks during the lockdown, and some became epicenters for the fentanyl trade. Even Portlanders who voted for decriminalization and believe in a compassionate approach to homelessness didn’t feel as safe in their own neighborhoods.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Unemployment Crisis Hits Office Workers

The U.S. economy has added more than two million jobs over the past year. But more people who are out of work are having a hard time getting back in. As of November, more than seven million Americans were unemployed, meaning they didn’t have work and were trying to find it. More than 1.6 million of those jobless workers had been job hunting for at least six months, according to the Labor Department. The number of people searching for that long is up more than 50% since the end of 2022. On average, it now takes people about six months to find a job, roughly a month longer than it did during the postpandemic hiring boom in early 2023, according to the Labor Department. The pain is largely in high-paying white-collar jobs, including in tech, law and media, where businesses grew fast when the economy reopened from the pandemic but now have less need for new hires. A labor market that looks healthy in the headlines is, under the surface, weaker than it seems. The unemployment rate, at 4.2%, remains well below the average during the decade before the pandemic. But there is now just about one job posting per unemployed worker, down from two in early 2022. Strong hiring has narrowed to a thin set of industries. The government’s monthly jobs report on Friday will provide another snapshot of the market’s health. More people getting unemployment benefits are drawing on public aid longer. New data released last week from the Labor Department show that 1.8 million people continued to file for previously granted unemployment benefits as of late December, near the postpandemic high.Year-over-year wage growth has fallen to 4%, down from about 6% at the height of the early 2020s hiring spree. That’s a sign that many employers don’t have to jostle so hard to attract workers. To date, the labor market has been weakening primarily due to less hiring—not widespread layoffs. But once companies decide to reduce payrolls, job cuts often snowball quickly, which could spark a much faster jump in the unemployment rate, said Veronica Clark, a Citigroup economist.

▲  129 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2016 replies3 agree1 disagree

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Trump’s Unlikely Victory Among Arab Americans and Right-Wing Jews

It is an extraordinary new coalition. Along the way to his decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, Mr. Trump drew at least some Arab American and Muslim voters who are outraged by the Biden administration’s support for Israel in the war in Gaza. He managed to do so without alienating the right-leaning American Jews who see Mr. Trump as Israel’s strongest champion.Even in an election marked by a reordering of the country’s traditional political teams, these strange bedfellows stand out. The two groups hold sharply divergent expectations for the president-elect. And both strongly pro-Israel Trump voters and some of Mr. Trump’s Arab American backers are skeptical that his ascent this week is the start of a durable cross-ideological, interfaith coalition.But in Dearborn, Mich., a majority-Arab city, Ms. Harris won just 36 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results, a roughly 34-percentage-point drop from Mr. Biden’s share of the 2020 vote in similar results released after that election. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate to the left of Ms. Harris, picked up 18 percent of the vote. But Mr. Trump’s support also jumped — to 42 percent of the vote from less than 30 percent four years ago, though turnout was lower.But in interviews throughout the campaign, Arab American and Muslim supporters said they were ready to take a chance on him anyway.Some were already aligned with the socially conservative views of the Republican Party. Many were nostalgic for the relative quiet of 2019.They also noted his efforts to campaign in Dearborn and the time spent in the area by his surrogates, especially Massad Boulos, a Lebanese American businessman and an in-law of Mr. Trump’s, and Richard Grenell, Mr. Trump’s former ambassador to Germany and acting intelligence chief.By contrast, they said, they saw Ms. Harris as inaccessible to the community.

▲  179 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…9hrs9H

Supreme Court Clears The Way For Trump Sentencing

Donald Trump will face sentencing over his New York “hush money” conviction on Friday, after the US Supreme Court declined to grant him a last-minute reprieve.The decision will force the president-elect to face public proceedings in the criminal case that he has fought strenuously to avoid. His lawyers had appealed to the high court on Wednesday to postpone the proceeding, claiming that allowing it to go ahead days before his inauguration would create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security” and interfere with his efforts to get his 34 felony convictions overturned.In a 5-4 decision handed down just hours before the sentencing was set to go ahead in a state court in lower Manhattan, a majority of the justices declined to do so, saying “the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” especially as Trump was unlikely to face any prison time. They added that any issues with the evidence presented at trial — some of which Trump’s lawyers have claimed was inadmissible — “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal”.Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the bench in refusing to grant Trump’s appeal.Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he appreciated the Supreme Court’s time but vowed to continue fighting the case. “For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” he said.Lawyers representing Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Trump’s sentencing was repeatedly postponed while he mounted his third campaign for the White House and pursued various appeals against his conviction. Last week Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the “hush money” trial in New York earlier this year, finally set a firm date, in order to bring what he called “finality to this matter”.Trump will probably not face any punishment when he is sentenced, however, as the judge previously indicated he would not impose a fine or condemn Trump to prison time.

▲  1617 replies