San Francisco takes harder line against homeless camps, defying its reputation(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
San Francisco takes harder line against homeless camps, defying its reputation
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/03/us/san-francisco-homeless-london-breed.html
11 comments
The problem is that homeless are unreliable and can use bussing programs as free transportation without proper verification that they actually have family in the other side. Ya, they get someone to vouch for them, but when they arrive, that was always a farce only lasts a week or so. Bussing isn’t really a solution, their drug or whatever problems actually need to be solved.
The real issue is that cities are expected to solve its homeless problems with local resources when they are never local at all (homeless are pretty mobile, and wind up in liberal fair weather cities for good reasons).
The real issue is that cities are expected to solve its homeless problems with local resources when they are never local at all (homeless are pretty mobile, and wind up in liberal fair weather cities for good reasons).
Pre-election optics? Governor Newsom cited this summer’s SCOTUS ruling against homeless encampments and issued an executive order to clean them up statewide. (Cities have some level of autonomy in complying.)
I can enjoy unfalsifiable beliefs as much as the next zealot, but not when such a clear provable reality exists too.
I can enjoy unfalsifiable beliefs as much as the next zealot, but not when such a clear provable reality exists too.
In the US, it's always election season, so political cynicism doesn't rest either. But do note that while state politics are largely single-party, local municipalities are much more varied (California, like the rest of the country, is an archipelago of blue cities in a sea of red). Rest assured that this hardline approach will be the norm throughout much of the state even if SF doesn't swing hard right overnight.
Even blue cities have variation. Witness Seattle’s left wing city council getting decimated in the last election with largely moderates replacing them. Within a city, you have moderate districts of mainly home owners and more left wing districts of mainly renters.
I would also add in California’s case that California isn't that liberal/progressive
Its conservative laws get struck down by the 9th circuit and its progressive laws stick
could probably just move the 9th circuit courthouse out of San Francisco and everything would drift to centrist quickly
Its conservative laws get struck down by the 9th circuit and its progressive laws stick
could probably just move the 9th circuit courthouse out of San Francisco and everything would drift to centrist quickly
I would argue that California really isn't that progressive even in the blue cities. And when things get really progressive, like with SF's school board, voters take it back. Actually the SF schoolboard election where non-citizens are allowed to vote probably helped that swing, since Asians and Latinos (more likely to lack citizenship) are more conservative on average (try telling a Chinese parent that math is racist...).
Back when I lived in Portland 20+ years ago, just as it was starting to turn into the version of itself that would be sent up in Portlandia, I used to tell relatives back east that culturally Oregon is to California what California is to the rest of the country.
Not sure how true that remains these days, it's been a while since I've been up there.
Not sure how true that remains these days, it's been a while since I've been up there.
Yeah Los Angeles (just the city, not the rest of the county and other municipalities within) is one of the only places actively not complying with the EO
My unpopular opinion: If someone continuously refuses services that offer a _life of decency_ (private room/bath, food, etc, not just a shelter but of comfort), then they become a ward of the state and given the rights and amenities of a child, because, regardless of their age, they simply cannot take care of themself. We have many laws and protections for minors for this exact reason.
I don't care how much it costs. Our current strategy costs a lot and solves nothing.
I don't care how much it costs. Our current strategy costs a lot and solves nothing.
In my mind there are three solutions to deal with the homelessness crisis.
1. You beat, intimidate, and throw people in jail for doing drugs or living on the street. (The old way)
2. You let these people live untouched and degrade public order, decency, and safety. (The current way)
3. You force people with mental health and drug addiction problems into healthcare and rehab facilities. (What you are suggesting)
Out of these three options I do agree that the third one sounds the best for society, and for those who have these addictions and illnesses.
1. You beat, intimidate, and throw people in jail for doing drugs or living on the street. (The old way)
2. You let these people live untouched and degrade public order, decency, and safety. (The current way)
3. You force people with mental health and drug addiction problems into healthcare and rehab facilities. (What you are suggesting)
Out of these three options I do agree that the third one sounds the best for society, and for those who have these addictions and illnesses.
#3 was done in Alberta until Austerity decided it was too expensive. Then we saw our streets get worse, and our EMTs answering more homeless calls than before, taxing the whole system (which itself is also very expensive).
I prefer 3, and I think after a certain amount of stubbornness it should result in prison too. If the prisons are well guarded then the person can sober up in there, hopefully add some value to their life through GED or whatever.
I prefer 3, and I think after a certain amount of stubbornness it should result in prison too. If the prisons are well guarded then the person can sober up in there, hopefully add some value to their life through GED or whatever.
It actually expensive to bring someone back from a bad fent addiction, with high failure rate to boot. So few million dollars to maybe bring back someone who will probably never be a net contributor to society even if treatment is successful, from a hard cold numbers perspective it isn’t worth it. Morally speaking it’s a completely different story, but prevention is very very very important these days. We really need to educate our kids that even trying drugs these days is too risky.
> that even trying drugs these days is too risky.
And yet the rat park studies and heritability of addiction suggest it's actually a predisposition to addiction (via environmental factors like poverty or emotionally disconnected "support" system in your childhood or life) that truly indicate the risk.
Healthy kids, in a healthy family, in a healthy society, with opportunities, and a non-cynical media etc. are less/un-likely to become addicted to anything, and the "addictive" elements seem to not lay in the drug/behavior of choice.
And yet the rat park studies and heritability of addiction suggest it's actually a predisposition to addiction (via environmental factors like poverty or emotionally disconnected "support" system in your childhood or life) that truly indicate the risk.
Healthy kids, in a healthy family, in a healthy society, with opportunities, and a non-cynical media etc. are less/un-likely to become addicted to anything, and the "addictive" elements seem to not lay in the drug/behavior of choice.
Ya so let’s focusing on helping kids be in the best environments possible. The pay off and effectiveness will be a magnitude better than wasting money on addicts later. We can’t exactly make healthy families, but preschool and summer camp opportunities, free healthcare, after school programs are all low hanging fruit.
> Ya so let’s focusing on helping kids be in the best environments possible
+ 1000
+ 1000
[deleted]
4. Provide free housing and attempt outreach.
It’s cheaper than jail or forced rehab.
It’s cheaper than jail or forced rehab.
Free housing where? In one of the most expensive cities in the world? If you provide free housing, it has to be accompanied by a compulsion to accept it, even if it's not in the place you prefer to live. And lots of homeless prefer SF because they have easy access to drugs, can panhandle, etc.
But if there's free housing on offer, it has to be accompanied by a stipulation that setting up a tent and being a societal menace in a major metro does not entitle you to free housing in that metro.
But if there's free housing on offer, it has to be accompanied by a stipulation that setting up a tent and being a societal menace in a major metro does not entitle you to free housing in that metro.
I don’t think it’s ever going to be feasible for SF to provide free housing to anyone who just shows up. It simply wont work no matter how much of the city budget they throw at it.
I agree, SF’s homeless are from all over the country, they can’t afford to house everyone. I would imagine the tide could be stemmed to some small degree if colder states had free housing with heat.
There is no solution in which society does not carry these people besides offing them. They are our burden.
Anywhere you would hold homeless people by force will be more expensive to staff and maintain in the long run than just giving them a shoebox with a bed and a hotplate.
Anywhere you would hold homeless people by force will be more expensive to staff and maintain in the long run than just giving them a shoebox with a bed and a hotplate.
You need to keep the house from being burned down, I heard the ratio in Finland for residents to social workers in 4-1.
I assume that’s still cheaper than jail though right? Not to mention more humane.
No, not really. It costs around $2-3k month to house them in jail, the cost starts at $10k/resident to house them in a tiny home or RV community without many social services. None of this cheap, although jail costs keep shooting up so who knows.
Free housing doesn’t address the root cause of the mental illnesses and homelessness. In my very expensive city they do offer free housing but the occupants remain drug addicts and petty criminals.
If there is free housing and you continue to break the social contract you either need to go to jail or you need to go to rehab.
If there is free housing and you continue to break the social contract you either need to go to jail or you need to go to rehab.
No, it addresses the sidewalks. People who steal things should be put in jail for stealing things, not for living in the streets.
3 > 1 > 2
> My unpopular opinion: If someone continuously refuses services that offer a _life of decency_ (private room/bath, food, etc, not just a shelter but of comfort), then they become a ward of the state and given the rights and amenities of a child, because, regardless of their age, they simply cannot take care of themself. We have many laws and protections for minors for this exact reason.
> I don't care how much it costs. Our current strategy costs a lot and solves nothing.
Perhaps it would be good to start by making those services (including a private room/bath, etc.) to homeless people and seeing how it affects the numbers before worrying about whether we need to take people's rights away? Currently, I don't think most homeless people have access to anything close to that in most places.
Homeless shelters have tons of limitations that make them difficult to use and are by reputation not very safe or comfortable, so improving that situation could do a lot to eliminate homelessness before you even need to start worrying about whether to compel people.
> I don't care how much it costs. Our current strategy costs a lot and solves nothing.
Perhaps it would be good to start by making those services (including a private room/bath, etc.) to homeless people and seeing how it affects the numbers before worrying about whether we need to take people's rights away? Currently, I don't think most homeless people have access to anything close to that in most places.
Homeless shelters have tons of limitations that make them difficult to use and are by reputation not very safe or comfortable, so improving that situation could do a lot to eliminate homelessness before you even need to start worrying about whether to compel people.
> “What is happening now is a quick and performative election-year gimmick,” he said.
This is exactly what I was thinking. This article[1] seems to suggest is started around Oct 2023 though.
[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/london-breeds-...
This is exactly what I was thinking. This article[1] seems to suggest is started around Oct 2023 though.
[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/london-breeds-...
[deleted]
This is a direct and predictable consequence of anti housing policies. Decry it all you like, but unless you actually vote out the left-NIMBY supervisors who have a majority on the board, you are part of the problem.
The problem on the streets in SF is 99% drugs and mental illness, maybe 1% housing. Almost all of the people in camps refuse services and shelter when offered.
Nah, it's way more than 1% housing. Even many drug-addicted people can still manage to not be homeless when housing is cheap (especially SROs), and a lot of the drug addiction is downstream of becoming homeless and hanging out with drug addicts all day.
[deleted]
Lack of housing, drug problems, and mental illness are not independent variables. A few months on the streets can push sober folks towards getting high, not to mention hurt one's sanity.
From a national standpoint, it's housing, but SF (and Oakland) specifically has a much different problem. The politicians run their political experiments in SF and they completely ignore the secondary and tertiary effects. You can't make it easy for people to live outside and not think it will not attract people from all over the country. Now it's guaranteed they won't have enough housing because of all the people it has attracted. Otherwise there's no reason to go to an expensive city if you can't afford it.
SF builds less than 20 new housing units a year. That's not a typo. They're great at virtue signalling, not so great at doing what needs to be done to get people housed, unlike say Austin Texas where rents have fallen almost 10% over the year due to new housing.
I'm hopeful for San Francisco, hopefully it lasts past the election
“Encourage”. Right.
[deleted]
> he found shelters too stressful
> The threat of jail won’t convince him to stay in a shelter, which already feels like jail
So there you have it. Giving them a free bed won't do it. I have a feeling that even giving them a room at the Fairmont wouldn't do it.
> The threat of jail won’t convince him to stay in a shelter, which already feels like jail
So there you have it. Giving them a free bed won't do it. I have a feeling that even giving them a room at the Fairmont wouldn't do it.
Homeless shelters really do suck from what I’ve read. Theft in particular is an issue.
I don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate from that statement that people wouldn’t take up the offer of shelter if quality and safety were improved.
There will always be holdouts, but a practical solution will make those the outliers rather than the common case.
I don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate from that statement that people wouldn’t take up the offer of shelter if quality and safety were improved.
There will always be holdouts, but a practical solution will make those the outliers rather than the common case.
Do you let the shelters become drugs dens? Because many chronically-homeless people in SF are addicts, and they prefer to live on the street than give up drugs to sleep indoors.
Addicts should have a choice: shelter, treatment, or jail. If you bring drugs in the shelter, your choice becomes treatment or jail. Drug encampments on city sidewalks should simply not be an option.
Some chronically homeless people in SF also suffer from mental illness and cannot look after themselves. They may also not do well in shelters. But leaving them outside is not humane. Institutions had a reputation for poor living conditions, but leaving them to suffer in the street is no better. And institutions can be improved.
Addicts should have a choice: shelter, treatment, or jail. If you bring drugs in the shelter, your choice becomes treatment or jail. Drug encampments on city sidewalks should simply not be an option.
Some chronically homeless people in SF also suffer from mental illness and cannot look after themselves. They may also not do well in shelters. But leaving them outside is not humane. Institutions had a reputation for poor living conditions, but leaving them to suffer in the street is no better. And institutions can be improved.
I’ve stayed at a shelter once in my life. It was horrible. I had to line up with scary people at like 6pm, wait hours, make it to my cot at 8ish, lights out at 9pm and then they wake you up at 5:30 in the morning and cast you away to figure out how to keep warm in below freezing weather. Couldn’t bring my stuff in with me; I had to leave my backpack in a shed that relied on the honor system (and getting to it ASAP when they unlocked the shed in the morning) to prevent theft. I couldn’t bring a snack in with me. It felt like jail. If I had more stuff than a little bag, they simply could not accommodate storage. If I had a sleeping bag I’d 100% have preferred to find some safer quiet spot to sleep, and sleep in until the sun came up.
To be fair, there’s a large delta between homeless shelters and the Fairmont. I’ve read a lot of women feel unsafe in them as it’s not exactly private and secure. Of course neither is the streets, but you can try and create more distance.
I have a lot of sympathy for those in this situation. It’s a tough place to be, and many won’t get out of it for a wide variety of reasons.
I have a lot of sympathy for those in this situation. It’s a tough place to be, and many won’t get out of it for a wide variety of reasons.
You also can't take your belongings, and people have nowhere else to put their things.
Where are you getting that information?
https://svdp-sf.org/navigation-center/
"Among the unique features of the Center are the capacity for couples to shelter together, bring in pets, and have clients possessions stored. "
https://svdp-sf.org/navigation-center/
"Among the unique features of the Center are the capacity for couples to shelter together, bring in pets, and have clients possessions stored. "
So here's a question for you: is there ANY definition of "housing" under which you'd be willing to compel homeless people to take it, under penalty of fines & jail? Please tell us.
I notice no one cares to answer this, but they do seem to be downvoting it. I wonder why? Because they think living on the streets is an unconditional right?
Nonetheless, no city is responsible for providing pleasant housing for everyone who comes there. The law on that is now quite clear.
Can't blame people for not using shelters if you make them feel like a prison.
Would you use a shelter where you can't control light switches, get woken up by a siren, get your stuff stolen, probably have to share showers and kitchen with junkies, if you are even allowed to cook your own food?
Would you use a shelter where you can't control light switches, get woken up by a siren, get your stuff stolen, probably have to share showers and kitchen with junkies, if you are even allowed to cook your own food?
https://svdp-sf.org/what-we-do/msc-shelter/
For most of those, I either don't find any support, or it's actually contradicted ("get your stuff stolen").
"cook your own food" -- how do they manage that if they live on the street?
VDP does mention:
"fully-functioning computer lab
free weekly haircuts
shower and laundry facilities"
So I think you are mostly making stuff up.
For most of those, I either don't find any support, or it's actually contradicted ("get your stuff stolen").
"cook your own food" -- how do they manage that if they live on the street?
VDP does mention:
"fully-functioning computer lab
free weekly haircuts
shower and laundry facilities"
So I think you are mostly making stuff up.
If you cant offer something better than jail why stay out of jail?
The point is that you don’t incentivize moving to SF with no money and no job and no prospects and living on the street until you get free housing.
Newsom tried this while he was mayor. His conclusion was that for every person they put in housing, two new people showed up on the street.
Another issue was that most people they put into “temporary” supportive housing never moved out. A significant portion of SF’s budget goes towards paying for the housing of formerly homeless people. The city won’t put them out on the street, so why would they ever leave?
Newsom tried this while he was mayor. His conclusion was that for every person they put in housing, two new people showed up on the street.
Another issue was that most people they put into “temporary” supportive housing never moved out. A significant portion of SF’s budget goes towards paying for the housing of formerly homeless people. The city won’t put them out on the street, so why would they ever leave?
So you're saying "let's put them in jail?"
>"than jail why stay out of jail?
to me their sentence reads more like if the shelter is worse than prison, might as well do something to get into prison.
to me their sentence reads more like if the shelter is worse than prison, might as well do something to get into prison.
That is a highly dubious opinion.
I am not homeless and I never have been, but I would MUCH rather sleep in a car or a tent (placed in a spot of my choosing, near people I trust and away from people I distrust) than in a typical homeless shelter surrounded by strangers who might assault me or steal from me in the night. It's not even close.
However, I'd MUCH rather sleep in a hotel room than in a car or a tent. Again, not even close.
I am not homeless and I never have been, but I would MUCH rather sleep in a car or a tent (placed in a spot of my choosing, near people I trust and away from people I distrust) than in a typical homeless shelter surrounded by strangers who might assault me or steal from me in the night. It's not even close.
However, I'd MUCH rather sleep in a hotel room than in a car or a tent. Again, not even close.
All you people trashing shelters as they exist:
is there ANY definition of "housing" under which you'd be willing to compel homeless people to take it, under penalty of fines & jail? Please tell us.
is there ANY definition of "housing" under which you'd be willing to compel homeless people to take it, under penalty of fines & jail? Please tell us.
If I put a gun to your head and told you where to live, would you feel that I was giving, or taking away, your personal liberty? Which of these two things should our government be responsible for? My Constitution says the former.
Without threat of violence, housing projects such as the Harlem River Houses have been immensely successful. Other than the US and Canada, do any other first world countries have homelessness problems of the magnitude we're seeing? Why does the US lead the world in homeless and prison populations; if stricter laws were the answer, shouldn't that have worked by now?
Without threat of violence, housing projects such as the Harlem River Houses have been immensely successful. Other than the US and Canada, do any other first world countries have homelessness problems of the magnitude we're seeing? Why does the US lead the world in homeless and prison populations; if stricter laws were the answer, shouldn't that have worked by now?
If the city says “You cannot live on the sidewalk, in public parks, or in Bart stations,” that’s a far cry from putting a gun to someone’s head.
The city can offer other options:
- shelters in the city
- shelters outside the city if shelter in the city are full (this is my controversial opinion, but if you can’t afford housing in a specific place, you may need to live in a different place until you can afford it. I’d love to live in Malibu, but I can’t afford it. I don’t think it’s my right to plop myself down on the sidewalk and shoot heroin until the city of Malibu builds me free housing. That’s not a realistic expectation.)
- bus fare return to family
- treatment for addicts
The city can offer other options:
- shelters in the city
- shelters outside the city if shelter in the city are full (this is my controversial opinion, but if you can’t afford housing in a specific place, you may need to live in a different place until you can afford it. I’d love to live in Malibu, but I can’t afford it. I don’t think it’s my right to plop myself down on the sidewalk and shoot heroin until the city of Malibu builds me free housing. That’s not a realistic expectation.)
- bus fare return to family
- treatment for addicts
It might, if laws were enforced. Most everyone I know left Norcal precisely because enforcement is nonexistent. Try calling the police in SF/Oakland. Hell, just google what it is actually like if you try: https://abc7news.com/post/oakland-76-gas-station-burglary-ro...
People who claim that "laws do not work" are usually ignoring that laws need ENFORCEMENT.
People who claim that "laws do not work" are usually ignoring that laws need ENFORCEMENT.
> If I put a gun to your head and told you where to live, would you feel that I was giving, or taking away, your personal liberty?
Context: I’m in your living room and refuse to leave.
Context: I’m in your living room and refuse to leave.
Private property.
> Private property
Valid. This is a tragedy of the commons. The problem is they’re being used for the private benefit of those camping on them. That will eventually undermine support for funding them.
Valid. This is a tragedy of the commons. The problem is they’re being used for the private benefit of those camping on them. That will eventually undermine support for funding them.
Yes, that's why you spend money on housing; for pennies on the police state dollar. Granting a person a room is a one-time cost, which can be diminished with larger builds, and a modest upkeep. The criminal justice system incurs significant ongoing costs per incarceree. Moreover, a criminal record is a barrier to employment, which tends to entrench people within the criminal justice system -- these costs can avoidably result in a lifetime of wasted taxpayer dollars.
Getting a person a room is, indeed, cheaper than running the whole criminal justice system if there had been such a person, giving a room to whom would stop all the homeless crime I'd be first to pay for their room my own personal money. What you meant, I believe, was running a free housing program for everyone, not a room for one person, right? And then the one-time cost is not one-time anymore, as people will be constantly demanding free housing, and modest upkeep is not so modest especially with larger build. And you still need to run the criminal justice system.
I am shooting in the dark here, but are you even aware of the various free housing programs that the US already had tried in the past[1]? Those did not solve the issues and the proponents blame them being too cheap on the failure.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...
I am shooting in the dark here, but are you even aware of the various free housing programs that the US already had tried in the past[1]? Those did not solve the issues and the proponents blame them being too cheap on the failure.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...
I grew up a block away from housing projects in Seattle, where many of my friends lived growing up. They were recently demolished, the majority of their residents sent packing (hello, homeless population!) and the developers who were granted the land sold most of the houses at market rate. Yeah, I'm familiar with what's been tried.
When a halfassed attempt fails, do not conclude that a full and honest effort would also fail.
When a halfassed attempt fails, do not conclude that a full and honest effort would also fail.
So if I got you right, you are saying that not enough money had been spent on the government housing (after insisting it will cost mere pittance to build and maintain)? These programs were not cheap already so whatever you propose should cost even more.
"True communism has never been tried."
Maybe look at WHY government-built housing is always so lousy. Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.
Maybe look at WHY government-built housing is always so lousy. Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.
> Maybe look at WHY government-built housing is always so lousy.
Thank you, this is a crucial aspect of Harlem that make it such a shining example in my mind. It was undertaken in a period when human dignity was given more weight. And while the apartments themselves seem stark to modern tastes, they were built about a century ago and in their time, contributed to a cultural renaissance.
A big problem is penny-pinching. You can sacrifice a ton of quality and end up only saving a few points on a total build cost, and paying way more in lifetime maintenance and replacement cost. Modern conservativism is penny wise, pound foolish, and that mindset is ever-present.
> Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.
Right on. But I didn't say that and I don't see anybody else saying that here.
Thank you, this is a crucial aspect of Harlem that make it such a shining example in my mind. It was undertaken in a period when human dignity was given more weight. And while the apartments themselves seem stark to modern tastes, they were built about a century ago and in their time, contributed to a cultural renaissance.
A big problem is penny-pinching. You can sacrifice a ton of quality and end up only saving a few points on a total build cost, and paying way more in lifetime maintenance and replacement cost. Modern conservativism is penny wise, pound foolish, and that mindset is ever-present.
> Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.
Right on. But I didn't say that and I don't see anybody else saying that here.
You didn't answer the question.
Unless the Harlem River House is your answer. So if that were available, THEN you'd be OK with compulsion?
Unless the Harlem River House is your answer. So if that were available, THEN you'd be OK with compulsion?
No, I am not okay with compulsion... you're asking me at which point has the government given enough gifts to justify authoritarianism. And I'm telling you, I don't accept your authoritarianism, and there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.
> there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.
pray tell
pray tell
I said so upthread, Harlem River House is the model. Government building out large and livable housing.
Did you also say that compulsion is OK, if Harlem River House-level housing is available?
A little research shows this to be a New Deal project that doesn't seem particularly replicable or sustainable:
https://www.courthousenews.com/harlem-public-housing-tenants...
https://pix11.com/news/3-big-problems-plague-harlem-river-ho...
A little research shows this to be a New Deal project that doesn't seem particularly replicable or sustainable:
https://www.courthousenews.com/harlem-public-housing-tenants...
https://pix11.com/news/3-big-problems-plague-harlem-river-ho...
Holy shit, for the third time in a row, no, I am not okay with authoritarianism. I said that with sufficient housing, it should not be necessary. No. No compulsion.
> it should not be necessary
there's that juvenile sentiment again. And there "shouldn't" be any burglaries, car thefts, armed robbery, or murder, either. Nevertheless, they've always existed and always will. And compulsion will always be a part of the civilized state.
there's that juvenile sentiment again. And there "shouldn't" be any burglaries, car thefts, armed robbery, or murder, either. Nevertheless, they've always existed and always will. And compulsion will always be a part of the civilized state.
OK, I think we have it, finally: you think people are entitled to live on the street. Good to know.
"There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.
"There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.
> "There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.
Or, humility. Nothing is certain in civic planning. But I suspect you'd jump on me if I claimed it was a foolproof plan, wouldn't you? But it's observed all over the world: in places where housing is affordable and available, there isn't a homelessness crisis. Most homeless people don't wanna be. Remove them, and the community goes away, and with it, all but a very few diehards that exist in practically every city.
Or, humility. Nothing is certain in civic planning. But I suspect you'd jump on me if I claimed it was a foolproof plan, wouldn't you? But it's observed all over the world: in places where housing is affordable and available, there isn't a homelessness crisis. Most homeless people don't wanna be. Remove them, and the community goes away, and with it, all but a very few diehards that exist in practically every city.
Really? Name some of your ideal cities. We'll check and see what their policies are for sleeping on the streets.
So if they do force people to move on, despite this "affordable and available" housing, that pretty well destroys your argument, doesn't it? Because all compulsion is bad, as you said.
So if they do force people to move on, despite this "affordable and available" housing, that pretty well destroys your argument, doesn't it? Because all compulsion is bad, as you said.
It sounds like you’re looking for an absolute solution which, as you suggest, will never exist without the use of state violence.
I believe most people would be satisfied if the problem were to simply become rare enough that they didn’t have to think about it.
If that’s the goal, I think improving housing quality can get you close.
I believe most people would be satisfied if the problem were to simply become rare enough that they didn’t have to think about it.
If that’s the goal, I think improving housing quality can get you close.
[deleted]
The bus policy has been going on for a while, just declined during covid. It always comes under scrutiny, but the actual offer is to reconnect homeless people with family and cover bus/train costs to fulfill that. Not always as heartless as the critics make it out to be.