4 ms·
This article starts with a valid point and careens into insanity. Arguably a design that permits a chunk of downtown to turn into a homeless encampment is "hos
by glangdale 7y ago
This article starts with a valid point and careens into insanity.
Arguably a design that permits a chunk of downtown to turn into a homeless encampment is "hostile" to the original purpose of a bench downtown, which is to be sat on by a range of different people in the course of the day.
If those BART gates are anything like the ones in Sydney, though, they are a substantial risk. During the roll-out of our "Opal" card system I got my leg slammed - hard - by the gates doing that thing where the mechanics are a little too slow to keep up with the electronics and a bunch of people are going through one after the other and largely keeping the gate open. To be clear, I'm talking about walking through the gate only after having the comforting little noise that said "yes, I scanned your card and you're OK" - not me trying to race through the system regardless of status.
I lift weights, am a fairly healthy middle-aged man, and am large (6'2.5", 235kg) and getting hit by that normal gate hurt. I cannot imagine what the consequences of this kind of paranoid design - especially amp-ing up the gate with more nasty stuff - would do to someone who is older and frailer (but perhaps not old/frail enough to feel like they have to use the special wide gate). It is completely unreasonable to endanger more vulnerable legitimate transit users to get a little more compliance, especially where the biggest scofflaws will still just vault the gates or 'draft' through behind others.
- DrScump 7y agoam large (6'2.5", 235kg) 235kg is large indeed. Did you mean 235 lbs?
- glangdale 7y agooops, you're right. I was converting back from metric but forgot to fix the units. 235lbs. 235kg wouldn't fit through a normal gate...
- danaris 7y ago> Arguably a design that permits a chunk of downtown to turn into a homeless encampment is "hostile" to the original purpose of a bench downtown, which is to be sat on by a range of different people in the course of the day. If you are a city official, and you know that you have a significant homeless population that would like a place to sleep that's safer and more comfortable than the ground, which is the more hostile course of action? a) Propose changes that would result in there being fewer homeless on the streets, or even fewer homeless overall (eg, more & better shelters, providing them with free housing as has been proven to work in multiple places, etc) b) Propose changes that make your area unfriendly to the homeless so they go elsewhere and lower someone else's property values c) Do nothing whatsoever Blithely talking about the "original purpose of a bench downtown" ignores the fact that there are real people suffering, not just because of the policies that replace more standard benches with anti-homeless benches, but because of the mindset that underlies them: homeless are a plague to be driven out, rather than human beings who deserve our compassion and help. It is a position of privilege to be able to sit and talk about "the original purpose of a bench downtown" as if that's much more important than people's suffering.
- glangdale 7y agoI like choice (a) best of all. I don't think taking serious steps to help the homeless in incompatible with wanting to have a downtown that isn't full of poo and untreated mentally ill people. I don't think SF is going to be in a great position to implement any of the steps in (a) if they lose a giant whopping chunk of jobs, revenue and tax base when those 'rusted-on conferences' finally get scared off and move to other cities, or when tourists decide SF is Just Too Damn Sketchy.