5 ms·

Your comment assumes that relocation 1) is bad, and 2) is the only step being taken to fight homelessness. In response to the second one, the city may be takin

Your comment assumes that relocation 1) is bad, and 2) is the only step being taken to fight homelessness. In response to the second one, the city may be taking a number of steps to fight homelessness. Shelters, mental health facilities, drug rehab programs, and counseling can all help the issue without relocation. Also, I'm just not sure relocation is completely a bad thing. Portland is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, with rent being prohibitively expensive to the lower class unless several people congeal in a single apartment. Not everyone can do that. How is it bad if they are relocated to a cheaper part of the country?

spamizbad 9y ago
> Your comment assumes that relocation 1) is bad, and 2) is the only step being taken to fight homelessness. Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. Yes, technically, mass-relocation of homeless could solve Portland's homeless problem, but it simply shifts the burden somewhere else. Second, the article specifically mentions the mayor's inaction to utilize the police and to enforce a ban on tent cities. It doesn't talk about shelters, mental health facilities, drug rehab, or counseling.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area?
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    >Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area? Why shouldn't we send you somewhere that you don't want to live? They're people - not cattle.
    - lwhalen 9y ago
      Hey everyone, sounds like this guy just volunteered to host as many homeless as wanted to live at his place! Dude's got that purp too, hooray!
      - dang 9y ago
        Please don't make a bad thread even worse by posting like this.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Contact is good. When the well-off just get to export away the ugly byproducts of their society, they're liable to produce more of them. Portlanders need contact with these homeless so that they will build a Portland which is either (1) better to the homeless or (2) doesn't produce as many of them. Besides he did make a point against your argument. Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? We've got our own homeless to take care of so you can keep yours, thanks.
    - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
      Portland already is better to the homeless – that's why they're there! But, generally, I've never come across a compelling argument or solution about homelessness. > Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        >Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland? >Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? I know you don't believe this, because if they could then they'd just demand housing in Portland. >Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? Perhaps we could widen the scope of the question and then you could answer it: Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free? >And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I actually don't agree on the economic efficiency. For all the whining about NIMBYs when it comes to real estate costs on HN, everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless. Besides like I said the point is contact (no matter how expensive that contact might be). >I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable! Of course - that's the point of contact. Contact -> Conflict -> Resolution. If your resolution is just to remove contact then I think you're failing on a societal level.

spamizbad 9y ago

> Your comment assumes that relocation 1) is bad, and 2) is the only step being taken to fight homelessness. Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. Yes, technically, mass-relocation of homeless could solve Portland's homeless problem, but it simply shifts the burden somewhere else. Second, the article specifically mentions the mayor's inaction to utilize the police and to enforce a ban on tent cities. It doesn't talk about shelters, mental health facilities, drug rehab, or counseling.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area?
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  >Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area? Why shouldn't we send you somewhere that you don't want to live? They're people - not cattle.
  - lwhalen 9y ago
    Hey everyone, sounds like this guy just volunteered to host as many homeless as wanted to live at his place! Dude's got that purp too, hooray!
    - dang 9y ago
      Please don't make a bad thread even worse by posting like this.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Contact is good. When the well-off just get to export away the ugly byproducts of their society, they're liable to produce more of them. Portlanders need contact with these homeless so that they will build a Portland which is either (1) better to the homeless or (2) doesn't produce as many of them. Besides he did make a point against your argument. Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? We've got our own homeless to take care of so you can keep yours, thanks.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    Portland already is better to the homeless – that's why they're there! But, generally, I've never come across a compelling argument or solution about homelessness. > Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland? >Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? I know you don't believe this, because if they could then they'd just demand housing in Portland. >Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? Perhaps we could widen the scope of the question and then you could answer it: Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free? >And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I actually don't agree on the economic efficiency. For all the whining about NIMBYs when it comes to real estate costs on HN, everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless. Besides like I said the point is contact (no matter how expensive that contact might be). >I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable! Of course - that's the point of contact. Contact -> Conflict -> Resolution. If your resolution is just to remove contact then I think you're failing on a societal level.