@ISIDEWITHQuestionsHousing IssuesStarted 3yrs agoActive 8mos ago

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

+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 633 Epirus and Western Macedonia voters.

53%
Yes
47%
No
29%
Yes
46%
No
24%
Yes, and create more social programs to provide free food, clothing, and medicine
1%
No, and make it a criminal offense

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 633 Epirus and Western Macedonia voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 633 Epirus and Western Macedonia voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Epirus and Western Macedonia voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9PMRZSNanswered…8mos8MO

Όχι και συμπληρωματικά θα πρεπει να υπάρχει ανεύρεση εργασίας ώστε να φτιάχνουν τη ζωή τους από την αρχή αυτά τα άτομα. Ο δημόσιος χώρος πρεπει να είναι σεβαστός από όλους.

 @9MQ7KMPanswered…9mos9MO

No, but at the same time give them incentives and support programs assistant on the road that will take them out of there not keep them there.

 @93XR9RHanswered…3yrs3Y

No, the gonvernment should fund shelters and enforce better living conditions so that refusal wouldn't be an option.

 @93XNRNCanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes but only in specific public areas.

 @93XTN93answered…3yrs3Y

No but give them better conditions in shelters and provide help to score a better paying job

Latest News

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

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

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…2wks2W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies