3 ms·

Sanitation, and sometimes (though certainly extremely rarely) infrastructure damage, as seen in the 2017 collapse of an Atlanta overpass. I don't think this is

Sanitation, and sometimes (though certainly extremely rarely) infrastructure damage, as seen in the 2017 collapse of an Atlanta overpass. I don't think this is the best point to argue on, especially as it's arguing from extremes, but it's a point to consider if more examples crop up. I've heard of similar fires starting in Seattle, but with less risk since the're not being set near other material likely to catch fire. I also don't think that you can group together /transients/ like who you describe and the /tent and tarp settlements/ that are prominent and overwhelming Seattle at this time. These only pronounce and concentrate the sanitary and fire risks, and invariably leave swathes of trash about them. One of these tent settlements near Pioneer Square was in the middle of the city, not even near the highways, and gained some infamy and even a title name, the 'tent mansion', when it accrued a full keg. It's one thing to say we shouldn't hide problems, another to let a problem run so wild and concentrated that the surrounding area is made useless for other public use in the process.

pmiller2 8y ago
I suspect many of the tent and tarp folks are doing it because there’s no better alternative. If cities would just build simple housing with proper sanitation (tiny houses, SROs, whatever) to get those people off the street, I’m sure that would take care of a majority of the public sanitation issues. Once you get someone into a home, it is vastly easier to help them stabilize their other issues (mental health and drug abuse among them). Housing first works, and it’s been proven to work time and again.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  > If cities would just build simple housing with proper sanitation (tiny houses, SROs, whatever) to get those people off the street I don't think it's that simple. This isn't a fixed constant set of people living on the street that you find homes for and that's the end of the problem. It's more of a revolving door; there's a constant supply replacing whoever gets off the street. I think what the article mentioned about Seattle is actually a reasonable approach: Seattle, meanwhile, has allowed some tent cities to operate as de facto communities — long-term, regulated, even with phone numbers and addresses. That might be a good compromise. Provide enough infrastructure to be sanitary, like California's state campgrounds with hot showers and toilets, with the addition of mailing addresses. Give them enough stability to maintain a job and a state ID, but don't make it so comfortable as to incentivize exploitation. It's a difficult balancing act, effectively helping the homeless, without making it an attractive path of least effort.
  - Fellshard 8y ago
    Except there is no infrastructure beyond what can be accessed via a cell phone - these are strewn along highways or streets, or beneath overpasses, unless there are some that really are more formalized than I've seen yet.

pmiller2 8y ago

I suspect many of the tent and tarp folks are doing it because there’s no better alternative. If cities would just build simple housing with proper sanitation (tiny houses, SROs, whatever) to get those people off the street, I’m sure that would take care of a majority of the public sanitation issues. Once you get someone into a home, it is vastly easier to help them stabilize their other issues (mental health and drug abuse among them). Housing first works, and it’s been proven to work time and again.

newnewpdro 8y ago
> If cities would just build simple housing with proper sanitation (tiny houses, SROs, whatever) to get those people off the street I don't think it's that simple. This isn't a fixed constant set of people living on the street that you find homes for and that's the end of the problem. It's more of a revolving door; there's a constant supply replacing whoever gets off the street. I think what the article mentioned about Seattle is actually a reasonable approach: Seattle, meanwhile, has allowed some tent cities to operate as de facto communities — long-term, regulated, even with phone numbers and addresses. That might be a good compromise. Provide enough infrastructure to be sanitary, like California's state campgrounds with hot showers and toilets, with the addition of mailing addresses. Give them enough stability to maintain a job and a state ID, but don't make it so comfortable as to incentivize exploitation. It's a difficult balancing act, effectively helping the homeless, without making it an attractive path of least effort.
- Fellshard 8y ago
  Except there is no infrastructure beyond what can be accessed via a cell phone - these are strewn along highways or streets, or beneath overpasses, unless there are some that really are more formalized than I've seen yet.