5 ms·
Also, it would take care of the homeless problem. 2 birds, one stone.
by throwaway181284 9y ago
Also, it would take care of the homeless problem.
2 birds, one stone.
- Waterluvian 9y agoI'm curious. How? Isn't homelessness a social symptom? Homelessness doesn't just disappear because the current homeless are displaced, I thought. That being said, I'm certainly not learned on the subject.
- d-sc 9y agoAn earthquake would open up new ground that is currently prohibitively expensive by regulation (the 'social' part of the problem ) to allow enough housing to be built to reduce cost significantly.
- closeparen 9y agoHomeless people still exist where housing is dirt cheap. It doesn't matter whether the rent is $2500 or $500 when you don't have the skills or mental health to be employed at all.
- malandrew 9y agoI imagine that strained resources in a disaster would drive many to leave the area. Katrina, for example, led many poorer people to leave New Orleans permanently. On the other hand, the homeless are used to dealing with meager resources and might be able to better tolerate a crisis situation.
- linkregister 9y agoWouldn't homeless people be less likely to be harmed by roofs caving in on them? (thankfully) I'm not sure if your comment was meant to echo Jonathan Swift.
- mr_overalls 9y agoNah, if their point had been satirical, they wouldn't have used a throwaway account. Poster isn't exactly overflowing with the milk of human-kindness.
- slyall 9y agoIn the Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake a few years back many of those killed were from the masonry facade of buildings collapsing into the street. There was even an earthquake a few months earlier that killed nobody because it was in the middle of the night.If something similar happened in SF then the front of buildings falling into the street/sidewalk could kill lots of homeless even if the buildings themselves stayed fairly intact.