4 ms·
Discussion around hostile design always seems to miss the forest for the trees to me. To point out a concrete example, is it better to address homeless populati
by lordCarbonFiber 7y ago
Discussion around hostile design always seems to miss the forest for the trees to me. To point out a concrete example, is it better to address homeless populations with some combination of state housing and UBI programs or, accept homelessness as an axiom and design public spaces to that end? The latter seems considerably more elitist and fatalist.
- Gibbon1 7y agoI read an economist's back of the envelop calculation on what the appropriate BART fare should be. When automobile subsidies and externalizes[1] were included the appropriate fare was negative. Ditto for Muni. And example, I took HWY80 to work and paid nothing for the pleasure. Why should the AC Transit or BART riders have to pay a fare when the freeway commuters don't?
- joeblow9999 7y agodrivers pay a fairly sizeable gas tax and also the cost of construction and maintenance per mile of freeway is inordinately less than BART
- lordCarbonFiber 7y agoI think that's a great analysis; but then the discussion should be around that issue "why is the public paying for this service" rather than whether it's ethical to make it harder to jump the turnstile.
- frostyj 7y agoam pretty sure Bart is operating on a deficit. Highway maintenance comes out of tax payer's pocket, so that's part of the money you spend riding on a freeway
- dnautics 7y agoThis is the complete idiocy of it. There are absolutely wonderful public transit systems that operate at a profit and are far cheaper than anything in the states. (E.g. MRT)
- the_watcher 7y agoLooks like you forgot your citation, I'd like to read it if you can update.
- Gibbon1 7y agohttps://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/08/so-why-isnt-riding-bart-free-a-back-of-the-envelope-finger-exercise-calculation.html https://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/08/so-why-isnt-riding-b...
- x3n0ph3n3 7y agoI'm pretty sure you paid a tax on that gasoline or electricity used to charge a car battery.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> And example, I took HWY80 to work and paid nothing for the pleasure. Except gas tax. And registration fees. And toll if you were crossing any of the Bay area bridges. And additional fees to use any of the Bay Area express lanes. Car travel is not free of government charges, even if the externalities aren't fully internalized.
- zxcmx 7y agoSeems like a false dichotomy? Allowing people to use public spaces in safety and comfort doesn’t preclude addressing homelessness by other means. Hostile architectural features actually cost more to install.
- bsder 7y agoThe difference is that the building owner can install the hostile architectural feature immediately in order to "solve" the building owner's homeless problem--ie. make them go somewhere else. Solving homelessness through the political system is DRASTICALLY slower.
- lordCarbonFiber 7y agoThe cost to the commons is pretty substantial though. One person sleeping on a bench vs 5 people sitting, a subway car with 50 people vs a subway car with one and the smell of death. These kind of features address practical concerns, concerns that won't go away unless you spend the capital (political and fiscal) to address the core issues.
- oh_sigh 7y agoYou don't think there would be homeless people with UBI? UBI might help the homeless-and-trying-not-to-be crowd, but I don't see how it would affect the homeless-because-it-a-choice-or-they're-mentally-disturbed crowd, the latter of which are generally the problem causers in SF.