4 ms·

There's a disconnect here. Individuals experiencing homelessness have already chosen to do so somewhere expensive. Generally they have reasons for this that th

by Kalium 7y ago

There's a disconnect here. Individuals experiencing homelessness have already chosen to do so somewhere expensive. Generally they have reasons for this that they find compelling. How would you propose to convince them to relocate to this hypothetical cheap homelessness-warehousing center elsewhere?

isoskeles 7y ago
I don't think any convincing would be necessary if the help were simply cut off in high cost of living areas and only available in lower cost areas. This will probably not happen any time soon because it's politically incorrect to effectively admit homeless people don't deserve to live in high cost of living areas, but it would certainly be more effective in helping people materially. Not to mention, people in lower cost, yet populated, areas probably don't want them there either and will fight to prevent this from happening (NIMBY).
- istjohn 7y ago
  The hypocrisy! NIMBY is precisely the name for this entire thread of self-pitying heartless belly aching.
munificent 7y ago
I have compelling reasons to choose to live in a penthouse suite in Manhattan. It has a beautiful view. Gorgeous amenities. Private parking. Really, it's the best. However, I can't afford to, so the way society persuades me not to live there is that they kick me out, since I didn't pay for the place and don't have any claim to it. This does not seem entirely unreasonable to me. I get your point: it seems like a moral good in America for people to have some inalienable (i.e. "not required to pay for") right to have some control over where they live. But it makes zero sense to have a black and white rule that everyone has a right to live anywhere they want. Do I have a right to take up residence inside your living room? Your home? Your porch? A public school's playground? The middle of an interstate? A public park? I think the reasonable answers to all of those are "no". The US is geographically sorting itself by wealth. You used to have pricy neighborhoods but any given city generally had some amount of property available across a range of income levels. With the transition to a service economy, this is less true over time. Now entire cities are becoming uniformly expensive. The reality is that I no longer think it's tenable to say that someone has a right to live in Manhattan regardless of their income level. The way things are going, it's probably going to be the case that the entire city limits of SF, Seattle, and NYC will go that way. Does it suck? Yes. Can it be solved at the city level? I don't think so.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  There may well be a limited supply of penthouse apartments in specific neighbourhoods. But the general housing crisis reflects a reality in which basic housing needs for a large portion of the population are either entirely unmet, or are intrinsically perilous, with risk of housing loss at any time high. Your colourful hypo entirely fails to address that point. I recommend again On the Media's excellent series on housing, "Scarlet E": https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/scarlet-e-unmasking-americas-eviction-crisis https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/scarlet-e-unmasking...
  - freyr 7y ago
    It's acknowledged that there's a housing crisis. There's also an opioid crisis, and a crisis in care for the mentally ill. I don't think OP would challenge any of that, but he's addressing a much more specific point: if we're to provide housing to people who cannot house themselves, and in particular, the growing number of people with apparent mental or addiction issues living on the streets of downtown city centers, is there an obligation to give them housing in that city center, or even in the city limits?
    - toast0 7y ago
      I certainly understand where you're going with this. It would seem to be most cost effective to put the housing somewhere where land and buildings are less expensive. I think this can be problematic for several reasons: It feels like just pushing the problem to other places/other people. If there's the right commitments and programs in place, maybe it can work. But where in the bay area is going to be happy to host a SF sponsored housing for homeless facility? And will it be less expensive enough to justify? If people have some connections to service providers or family or social connections, moving them far enough away to save costs is going to make it really hard to keep those up.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago

by Kalium 7y ago

isoskeles 7y ago

I don't think any convincing would be necessary if the help were simply cut off in high cost of living areas and only available in lower cost areas. This will probably not happen any time soon because it's politically incorrect to effectively admit homeless people don't deserve to live in high cost of living areas, but it would certainly be more effective in helping people materially. Not to mention, people in lower cost, yet populated, areas probably don't want them there either and will fight to prevent this from happening (NIMBY).

istjohn 7y ago
The hypocrisy! NIMBY is precisely the name for this entire thread of self-pitying heartless belly aching.

munificent 7y ago

I have compelling reasons to choose to live in a penthouse suite in Manhattan. It has a beautiful view. Gorgeous amenities. Private parking. Really, it's the best. However, I can't afford to, so the way society persuades me not to live there is that they kick me out, since I didn't pay for the place and don't have any claim to it. This does not seem entirely unreasonable to me. I get your point: it seems like a moral good in America for people to have some inalienable (i.e. "not required to pay for") right to have some control over where they live. But it makes zero sense to have a black and white rule that everyone has a right to live anywhere they want. Do I have a right to take up residence inside your living room? Your home? Your porch? A public school's playground? The middle of an interstate? A public park? I think the reasonable answers to all of those are "no". The US is geographically sorting itself by wealth. You used to have pricy neighborhoods but any given city generally had some amount of property available across a range of income levels. With the transition to a service economy, this is less true over time. Now entire cities are becoming uniformly expensive. The reality is that I no longer think it's tenable to say that someone has a right to live in Manhattan regardless of their income level. The way things are going, it's probably going to be the case that the entire city limits of SF, Seattle, and NYC will go that way. Does it suck? Yes. Can it be solved at the city level? I don't think so.

dredmorbius 7y ago
There may well be a limited supply of penthouse apartments in specific neighbourhoods. But the general housing crisis reflects a reality in which basic housing needs for a large portion of the population are either entirely unmet, or are intrinsically perilous, with risk of housing loss at any time high. Your colourful hypo entirely fails to address that point. I recommend again On the Media's excellent series on housing, "Scarlet E": https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/scarlet-e-unmasking-americas-eviction-crisis https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/scarlet-e-unmasking...
- freyr 7y ago
  It's acknowledged that there's a housing crisis. There's also an opioid crisis, and a crisis in care for the mentally ill. I don't think OP would challenge any of that, but he's addressing a much more specific point: if we're to provide housing to people who cannot house themselves, and in particular, the growing number of people with apparent mental or addiction issues living on the streets of downtown city centers, is there an obligation to give them housing in that city center, or even in the city limits?
  - toast0 7y ago
    I certainly understand where you're going with this. It would seem to be most cost effective to put the housing somewhere where land and buildings are less expensive. I think this can be problematic for several reasons: It feels like just pushing the problem to other places/other people. If there's the right commitments and programs in place, maybe it can work. But where in the bay area is going to be happy to host a SF sponsored housing for homeless facility? And will it be less expensive enough to justify? If people have some connections to service providers or family or social connections, moving them far enough away to save costs is going to make it really hard to keep those up.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago