3 ms·
And that's perfectly fine. The only question is who should pay for the externalities of your lifestyle? Now that point is contentious, how much exactly does tha
by erispoe 10y ago
And that's perfectly fine. The only question is who should pay for the externalities of your lifestyle? Now that point is contentious, how much exactly does that amount to? Regulation distorts competition towards your lifestyle, by mandating large amounts of parking, for instance, or by letting cities bear the cost of what suburban dwellers simply do not want to see in their backyard, or by subsidizing your mortgage.
As for 'human feces', it's not a problem of cities so much as lack of safety net. It's not because of cities that people are homeless, it's because we removed the infrastructure that prevented them to go homeless in the first place (social support networks, mental health support...). They are more tolerated in cities and cities typically invest in basic services for them, so that's where they congregate. Your ability to not step in human feces in your suburb is directly dependent on cities' willingness to provide services for this population (or they'll simply die).
- hueving 10y ago>Your ability to not step in human feces in your suburb is directly dependent on cities' willingness to provide services for this population (or they'll simply die) So is this an argument not to provide services for the homeless? If the result of providing support in the city is human shit everywhere, then maybe the homeless services should be moved outside the center of the city.
- erispoe 10y agoBasic support to prevent people to go homeless is not only more moral and more humane, it's also cheaper. In California, I'd start by rebuilding mental health support. The State should do it.