> It is a concern, clearly, the other commentor brought it up.
Bringing up something doesn't mean it's a valid concern, or maybe better put it doesn't mean it's a concern worth discussing.
> Kicking people out of anywhere, regardless of their housing status, is a relatively extreme conflict, compared to the normal happenings at a diner, cafe, or bar. Panhandlers aren't a good comparison because no one's trying to hang out at the intersection.
I don't disagree that the interactions are different, but maybe you haven't had a pan handler toss a drink on your car or bang on your window or scream at you in your face? In terms of concern, they are pretty close.
The problem with this conversation is that the OP is framing the conversation as "how do we deal with this random and rare hypothetical situation that only applies to urban environments" to cast doubt on the creation or continued support of people getting together in these third places. So just as much as they are worried about that, I'm worried about the pan handlers bothering me and throwing stuff at my car at the highway intersection. :)
Calling it an American-centric problem doesn't make sense either.
> As to your question about the difference between America and Europe...
It was a bit of a rhetorical question. There aren't any substantial differences in "how we handle the homeless" with respect to coffee shops in a city or whatever the "concern" is here.
> Maybe in practice, it's not that different over there, but it seems like they have more tools and resources to handle mental health crises, which would lessen the rest of the population's assumption that unhoused = dangerous.
It would be hard to really qualify but in my experience it's about the same, though I think homeless people* in the United States tend to be more aggressive with their pan handling or escalation toward violence. Some are on drugs shipped in from somewhere and even though we do provide services (perhaps they are inadequate?) to help, it doesn't appear to be enough. Part of the reason people believe that homeless == dangerous tends to be because of a few negative interactions, which can be quite scary and intimidating and make you avoid a place.
Ultimately, "uh oh what if a homeless person comes to the Third Place" is not a concern because those rare potential interactions don't get to dictate how everyone lives their lives and it's not a strong enough of a concern to matter in this conversation context.
* Homelessness exists in many forms, many of those hidden from us in day-to-day view and I think we should continue to provide support to people to help ensure they don't become homeless in the first place. But at the same time we can recognize the anti-social behavior of some and address that. In the context of this conversation there's no "worry" about a homeless person walking in to a coffee shop - mind your own business, but the worry is one who is aggressive or belligerent, or disturbing others who have a right to peace regardless of the situation someone else finds themselves in.
Bringing up something doesn't mean it's a valid concern, or maybe better put it doesn't mean it's a concern worth discussing.
> Kicking people out of anywhere, regardless of their housing status, is a relatively extreme conflict, compared to the normal happenings at a diner, cafe, or bar. Panhandlers aren't a good comparison because no one's trying to hang out at the intersection.
I don't disagree that the interactions are different, but maybe you haven't had a pan handler toss a drink on your car or bang on your window or scream at you in your face? In terms of concern, they are pretty close.
The problem with this conversation is that the OP is framing the conversation as "how do we deal with this random and rare hypothetical situation that only applies to urban environments" to cast doubt on the creation or continued support of people getting together in these third places. So just as much as they are worried about that, I'm worried about the pan handlers bothering me and throwing stuff at my car at the highway intersection. :)
Calling it an American-centric problem doesn't make sense either.
> As to your question about the difference between America and Europe...
It was a bit of a rhetorical question. There aren't any substantial differences in "how we handle the homeless" with respect to coffee shops in a city or whatever the "concern" is here.
> Maybe in practice, it's not that different over there, but it seems like they have more tools and resources to handle mental health crises, which would lessen the rest of the population's assumption that unhoused = dangerous.
It would be hard to really qualify but in my experience it's about the same, though I think homeless people* in the United States tend to be more aggressive with their pan handling or escalation toward violence. Some are on drugs shipped in from somewhere and even though we do provide services (perhaps they are inadequate?) to help, it doesn't appear to be enough. Part of the reason people believe that homeless == dangerous tends to be because of a few negative interactions, which can be quite scary and intimidating and make you avoid a place.
Ultimately, "uh oh what if a homeless person comes to the Third Place" is not a concern because those rare potential interactions don't get to dictate how everyone lives their lives and it's not a strong enough of a concern to matter in this conversation context.
* Homelessness exists in many forms, many of those hidden from us in day-to-day view and I think we should continue to provide support to people to help ensure they don't become homeless in the first place. But at the same time we can recognize the anti-social behavior of some and address that. In the context of this conversation there's no "worry" about a homeless person walking in to a coffee shop - mind your own business, but the worry is one who is aggressive or belligerent, or disturbing others who have a right to peace regardless of the situation someone else finds themselves in.