takes steps so they don't become overrun with homeless 
. Reddit soy 
posts call to action!
Be sure to contact every member of the Des Moines city council and tell them you support their final solution to the homeless question.
I see the poors are pretending to be big wallet niggas again est. 2016
Hello, welcome to 'I see the poors are pretending to be big wallet gangstas again'
This hole exists as a safe space for refugees from the Facebook(MetaTM groups of the same name. Of which there have been several iterations. We mostly exist to poke fun at the state of living in poverty. While it oftentimes is unavoidable, we do aspire to not be meanspirited. Over the years we have co-opted the term 'Peak Poor' to being someone who exudes poverty, regardless of their actual net worth. Trump and Elon both exhibit the peak poor ethos from time to time while still being the top 0.000001%. You can do something peak poor and still be a good person or a generally adjusted one. We all have a bit of poor in us.
We basically fill a niche similar to fatpeoplehate with a bit less actual malice.
PeakPoor is shotgunning mountain dews at 5 years old.
PeakPoor is not people dying of poverty. While technically the greatest heights of poverty is succumbing to it this is not funny, and is a failure
of capitalism. We do not make fun of poverty to be mean spirited such as that.
Read the room, if it's punching down too hard or really digging into someone whos a sympathetic character it doesn't belong here. (basically READ THE ROOM)
Sitewide rules apply
other rules
Subscribe to this hole, it's important that we get our numbers up. Love numbers = peak poor
Bonus points for making your post title some variation of peak poor. (Pinnacle of Poverty, Prowess of the Penniless)
I am looking for a mod who will help me grow this place and encourage the facebook community where the majoryity of our members reside
to migrate. Contact me if interested.
I really do love you all so very much, i'm even spending drama coin to get some banners and marseys. thanks for being a part of the community.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The homeless should be free to do whatever they want without consequences.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I would be fine with the general lawlessness of the era if it was universal i.e. the homeless guy could pee on my house but I could also freely retaliate with anything from an airhorn to a .45
Would be quicker than waiting around the authorities to show up anyway
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not compassionate enough. Should be allowed to give them a hot dose in a quiet, secluded area where they can enjoy it without being harassed by cops oppressing them with Narcan, ruining their high.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The homeless
should 
follow 
me to Home Depot to buy some pickaxes after I tell them there's a layer of gold under 
the streets.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
If the homeless are allowed to shoot up fent on the street I should be allowed to
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Then they should transition
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!neolibs what's the evidence based solution to the homeless question?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Enslavement
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
KEEP YOURSELF SAFE
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Homeless people would be better off mowing my lawn wearing a shock collar
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Something that takes them away from the zombie drugs. It's not going to be pretty though so good luck getting voter support.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So killing them?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Illegal comment in Bongland
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm sure it's illegal in Brazil as well.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just saying you want to kill some homeless? Probably not, unless you took steps to prepare
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What about my comments saying BIPOC? Do they fit as crime of racism?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I think you would need to direct them at someone, just saying BIPOC shouldn't count I don't think
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What if I said you are neighborrdly?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Pass laws that encourage them to live in homeless cities like Seattle and San Francisco. This way, the cities that can best help them can do so! It's called specialization of labor, sweaty.
Honestly, homelessness in the US has already been solved since practically every city and town has half-way homes. Homelessness as seen on TV and the internet is really just junkies not wanting to kick their addiction (can't use half-way homes because they have rules against using drugs, derp). "Homelessness" is really a junkie problem, but West and East Coast libtards still haven't figured that out.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They have but NGOs block real solutions
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They've tried giving them free drugs and drug accessories.
If that didn't work, what will?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Giving them a really large amount of drugs will solve the problem
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If you didn't care about morals whatsoever you could solve the drug problem
by having drugs 
confiscated by police/feds poisoned and rereleased back to distributors/addicts
After a year it wouldn't be an issue. That said it's an evil that shouldn't be implemented
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They tried that with moonshine.
I think they should just put the drugs in a big pit with slippery walls.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
As long as it's televised
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
park a U-Haul full of fent under a bridge somewhere and the problem would solve itself overnight
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
How so? Don't the NGOs get government-approved money for their projects? It's always seemed like government keeps picking losers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If the problem disappears so do the NGOs' reasons for being and their ability to siphon money from the taxpayer. They provide bullshit feel-good solutions that pander to progressive sensibilities and further exacerbate things providing justification for further funding from our single party state. The politicians "picking losers" (their buddies) is by design.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Oh, so I'm back to blaming government then.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Property is a luxury market that's being propped up by retirement interests and government investors, being regulated as a mandatory necessity market. Consumers demand an alternative, and "tiny homes" is a cuck middle ground the government barely allows.
We need homelessness to become more viable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
omg, you're such a Greuselle!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Funnel taxpayer money to unaccountable NGOs, duh
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The NGO industrial complex is just the military industrial complex for progressoids.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Both are unironically just job programs/welfare with a purpose so people don't become too rowdy - military for rurals with no life prospects and NGO's for (mostly female) urbanoids with crippling college debt.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Build new asylums and throw them in there
e z p z
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
has to be a multipronged approach. one issue among many is that the only type of legitimate housing that a lot of street people would be suited for (SRO) just doesn't exist in a lot of places anymore, and that falls under the general "blue states are catastrophically bad at housing policy" rubric. but whatever we do, as long as setting up a tent somewhere in the heart of a city remains an option, some people will choose it. and as a lolbertarian I think that's fine as long as we don't enshrine it as an all-encompassing right and are able to kick them out of spaces that should be for other things.
the point of criminalizing street people behavior isn't to eliminate it, it's to push it out of nice orderly spaces and into more marginal ones, instead of letting the street people claim everything even halfway "public" for themselves.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Of course this will help homelessness because it'll push them toward a city that's more than willing to dump billions on them.
The ACLU is once again full of shit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!nooticers libtard NGOs fight round 2 (repost), which one is worst
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ACLU because they were principled at one point. The SPLC has always been shit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The ACLU has fallen a lot farther from what it once was than the SPLC which was by comparison always more of an organization meant to funnel money from rich donors to sue their ideological enemies for wrong think and to launder narratives for the media to report on as truth. The SPLC is pretty much the equivalent to PETA for credibility in current year which is next to zero. The FBI doesn't even use them as a source anymore as far as I know.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Homeless people should just assess fines back to put the balance at zero
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Re-up on the good shit today?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Friend
insisted
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Mix it with something new and interesting. Drugs are more fun in pairs
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sorry
I misspoke, and Good shit, not fun shit and its EVERYTHING
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My attempts to gruem this king with food were ignored. True freedom is a greater prize than any goyslop
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You have to convince it that you will not ask too much of it, and That you wont punish it for its openness
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
What if we gave homeless the ability to have fines forgiven. $1000 for crapping up a public park. Reduced to nothing if you submit to drug testing for a month and enroll yourself into one of the freely provided job programs we offer.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You'll get.... ZERO employees after 29-30 days. Have fun re-hiring!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
People who refer to a city by its airport code should be shot.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
DSM is going to be the next PDX
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
A legally enforced market is not a free market. What model of property avoidance should productive members of society do, to exercise free will as consumers in the housing market?
These regulations are stopping the only people that matter (low-mid consumers) from accumulating wealth.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I'm glad to see there's at least some push-back to this in the replies, but sometimes as an observer I have to remind myself how out-of-step this sub-reddit is with a lot of the people I talk with in DSM in the real world everyday and what most people seem to think about this problem and how to help and see change. This sub's need to infantilize every aspect of this issue is really off-putting to a lot of people who probably otherwise support a good portion of advocacy for the homeless, and these people are well meaning. Just because everyone doesn't agree with every single aspect of your ideal fix doesn't mean they don't want to see something change for the better for people.
We walk the river trails almost every day (or at least the days where it's not 95+ degrees from sun up until sun down). We see plenty of homeless people camped along the river, down on the embankments, under the bridges, etc. Most of them are respectful, mind their own business, take care of the few things they have and are exceptionally normal and polite.
But it really does harm the argument and advocacy for these folks when we have to obstinately pretend that there aren't a smaller number of the homeless people who aren't polite, don't mind their own business, and do not treat their own stuff or environment well at all. And some of those people are downright unsafe to be around. When people put blinders on like that and insist that it's a moral imperative that we have to treat every homelessness case like it's the exact same, you are driving people away from your cause by asking them not to believe their own eyes or trust their own experiences.
Recently, when we've been walking along the river there is a fellow staying along a couple of the bridges who seems to be causing a lot of trouble both towards the runners/walkers on the trails and the other homeless people who are camping nearby. He behaves erratically. He aggressively is pacing back and forth all day long screaming at people. He has two push carts stacked four-feet high with stuff, covered in plastic, and a backpack-style suitcase, and he's down there yelling incoherently to himself and cussing randomly at other homeless people and people just walking along the trails. This afternoon while walking our dog we watched him looking into a bunch of random car windows in one of the nearby parking lots, then he followed us and a couple of young women to the trails yelling incoherently.
A few nights ago on the way back from our walk we saw him swinging a bottle over the head of another homeless lady who has been around for a while and been very polite to us and basically had her cornered against a chain link fence. She did not look like she wanted him to be near her. This guy has his stuff tucked up under a hole he's dug near a retaining wall along the trail and is camping within 30 yards of a business that has kids coming and going all day. Those two people are not the same thing.
I'm sorry, but that's not okay. If that makes me a bad person, then I guess too bad. In my opinion people deserve second and third chances. People deserve help when they've fallen on bad luck. People deserve the opportunity to have meaningful work, and help with transitional housing, healthcare, and food. But it is also the undeniable reality that there are people who are not interested in accepting help, and who are not only not interested in accepting help, but are also causing chaos both for their fellow homeless population and the general community. This is the fact of the matter.
If there is ever to be meaningful headway on this subject, we can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend that there isn't a small contingent of the homeless population that is making public spaces less safe for everyone, including their peers. We have to be able to make meaningful distinctions between the people who need and want help and the people who will literally find any excuse to avoid changing their situation, or those who for whatever reason cannot do so and are as a result a danger to themselves and others. Someone who has just fallen on some hard times is not the same as someone who is suffering from debilitating drug addiction, and someone who is dealing with debilitating drug addiction is not the same as someone who has severe and untreated mental illness. These people exist. You cannot through advocacy and stubbornness make it so most people pretend they aren't here.
Every time I lurk on one of these threads in this sub-reddit it's like the morality Olympics in here. Who can project the most empathy toward the situation? Who has the best half-baked, one-size-fits-all solution? It makes the people with good intentions who are advocating for support for the homeless come off as though they are being uncompromising on a problem that is intractable. This has to stop.
Most of us want everyone, including the homeless, to feel safe and welcomed in our community. I cannot think of a more harmful thing for homeless people than treating people who just need a couple stretches of good luck the exact same as people who are legitimately harming the community as the exact same. I cannot think of a more harmful thing for homeless people than trying to absolve them of any responsibility or agency over their own lives, including having to have the basic respect of following any rules at all in order to integrate back into society. We all follow rules. We all have responsibilities. We all expect, off the web forums, a certain level of basic respect between each other. People who are not pushing their stuff online all day are not going to get on board with absolutism. It just isn't going to happen. These are adult human beings. Not infants. Give them that respect. And that includes some accountability.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
If it boils down to something like "gee golly we should give them more stuff," then they're just as r-slurred as their libtard cousins on the US Coast.
Almost all homeless are well past their third chance. They're junkies, and no amount of subsidies nor lenient punishment will solve that problem. We already have plenty of real world experiments that have been failing for years, yet they keep doing it [most likely because voters are well-intended idiots who keep electing people who say nice things but also ignore unintended outcomes]. The political system is severely r-slurred.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I didn't actually read the comment that I pasted but I'll assume you're right.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thanks all the same, sweaty!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You're the ones arguing that them not having stuff makes them immoral
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Nice try, sphereclone.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's beautiful
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I don't see the problem. Iowa doesn't like homeless people, so they make laws with the aim of getting homeless people to frick right off. California worships the homeless, so they give them all kinds of gibs.
Basically, California outbids Iowa and the homeless move there. The market has spoken. The system works. Everyone should be happy now.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
We need a big dome where we can televise massive bum fights.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You like Peepee and Balls? Huh? Maybe a Little Bit of Peepee? FuuuUUuk. It's Lit in Here, Huh? MmmmMmm. Y-you what? You like Peepee and Nuts? Huh? Maybe a little bit of Peepee and Peepee? Peepee and Balls? Mmmmmdm FuuuUUuukkk ,....
Snapshots:
https://old.reddit.com/r/desmoines/comments/1el03w5/dsm_city_council_claims_that_they_are_not/:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context