3 ms·

why would the other city ever agree to this? we have instances of cities facing outcry from residents for simply building homeless shelters within their own li

by kyshoc 7y ago

why would the other city ever agree to this? we have instances of cities facing outcry from residents for simply building homeless shelters within their own limits[0][1]. I imagine the outcry for a city "shipping out" their homeless to a shelter outside their bounds would be even worse. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/28/san-francisco-gofundme-homeless-shelter-embarcadero https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/28/san-francisc... [1]: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/04/02/huntington-beach-scratches-proposal-for-50-bed-homeless-shelter-near-marina-high-school-after-resident-outcry/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/04/02/huntington-beach-scrat...

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
It doesn't need to be a city. I've thought about this idea myself, pick a state with a large amount of empty land and construct housing, addiction and mental health services in a single place. A massive complex for those unable to care for themselves in society. It would cost billions but it already costs billions nationally to care for the homeless. With lower wages and land values you'd have large cost savings and that's before economies of scale. Let the addiction specialists and mental health professionals set the rules here. They would be limited by the constitution but would be able to enact laws for this very specific segment of the population. A low trust society encased within a high trust society. At that point cities would be free to enact laws to the effect of "get help in the complex or go to prison" when they catch the homeless committing crime. Homeless no longer are a blight to the cities and the homeless get the best help we can offer.
- eigenvector 7y ago
  What exactly is the difference between what you describe and prison?
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    And herein lies part of the reason for the mentally ill in homelessness; A portion of homelessness is a result of cut mental facility funding combined with ending forced institutionalization.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    Lack of a cell, freedom to leave, no criminal record. Nobody would be forced to go but if you claim you don't need any of these services you will be treated as a regular citizen who just publicly shot up in the street.
- travisgriggs 7y ago
  Nevada? It worked well for Yucca Mountain...
- sixtypoundhound 7y ago
  Don't even need to cross state lines in this case - there's plenty of wilderness and low-density space in Washington (even Western Washington) where development is a fraction of the cost of building and operating a facility in Seattle. Build in a cheap area and shift the surplus into social services and vocational training to help people get off the treadmill. Relocation should be behavior based (so not "vagrancy", which is a BS charge, but actual public misconduct or documented threat of self-harm). X strikes and you're relocated unless you can fund an appropriate bond. The rest of the state is probably a healthier place to heal in any event... easier to control access to drugs and alcohol and limit the violence from street predators. The street isn't a very supportive environment....

by kyshoc 7y ago

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

It doesn't need to be a city. I've thought about this idea myself, pick a state with a large amount of empty land and construct housing, addiction and mental health services in a single place. A massive complex for those unable to care for themselves in society. It would cost billions but it already costs billions nationally to care for the homeless. With lower wages and land values you'd have large cost savings and that's before economies of scale. Let the addiction specialists and mental health professionals set the rules here. They would be limited by the constitution but would be able to enact laws for this very specific segment of the population. A low trust society encased within a high trust society. At that point cities would be free to enact laws to the effect of "get help in the complex or go to prison" when they catch the homeless committing crime. Homeless no longer are a blight to the cities and the homeless get the best help we can offer.

eigenvector 7y ago
What exactly is the difference between what you describe and prison?
- smileysteve 7y ago
  And herein lies part of the reason for the mentally ill in homelessness; A portion of homelessness is a result of cut mental facility funding combined with ending forced institutionalization.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Lack of a cell, freedom to leave, no criminal record. Nobody would be forced to go but if you claim you don't need any of these services you will be treated as a regular citizen who just publicly shot up in the street.
travisgriggs 7y ago
Nevada? It worked well for Yucca Mountain...
sixtypoundhound 7y ago
Don't even need to cross state lines in this case - there's plenty of wilderness and low-density space in Washington (even Western Washington) where development is a fraction of the cost of building and operating a facility in Seattle. Build in a cheap area and shift the surplus into social services and vocational training to help people get off the treadmill. Relocation should be behavior based (so not "vagrancy", which is a BS charge, but actual public misconduct or documented threat of self-harm). X strikes and you're relocated unless you can fund an appropriate bond. The rest of the state is probably a healthier place to heal in any event... easier to control access to drugs and alcohol and limit the violence from street predators. The street isn't a very supportive environment....