3 ms·
That's part of why I included on a local scale. If your town provides more amenities and generally treats the homeless population better than the surrounding ar
by DuskStar 8y ago
That's part of why I included on a local scale. If your town provides more amenities and generally treats the homeless population better than the surrounding areas, of course homeless people are going to move to it. Which might be good for the homeless, but it's kind of counterproductive in terms of the original problem statement - "as a homeowner I really don't like that an army of homeless people can setup encampment by my home on public property (in part maintained by my tax dollars) and then bring crime, aggressive panhandling, trash (lots of it) and lowered property values to my neighborhood."
- stephengillie 8y agoSo you're saying a regional, or even statewide approach is needed?
- DuskStar 8y agoI'm saying that an approach that covers an area large enough that you cannot easily traverse it has a chance of working, and smaller programs will always have to contend with the "importing more homeless" problem. IMO, that would have to be the entire country - getting a greyhound from Las Vegas to Los Angeles isn't out of reach, for example. But a statewide approach would still be less affected by this than a citywide one, which itself would be better than something on the scale of a neighborhood. And even then, that's to have a chance. I don't think that "give a ton of benefits to the homeless" is a surefire solution to reducing homelessness. The Utah approach (fix the "homeless" part by giving them a home, then fix everything else) might work, but it requires a bit more societal trust than a lot of the country has.