4 ms·

What is ineffective about addressing the issue locally? Why “the feds”?

by tdy721 7y ago

austhrow743 7y ago
Unless the solution being proposed is to brutalise the homeless to make them move elsewhere, then it needs to be enacted at the level with control over freedom of movement of people. If SF creates policies to help the homeless, more will move there than already do so.
- carapace 7y ago
  First, the feds should not limit the freedom of movement of a human person even if said human person does not own or rent a house. One of the messed up things about being homeless (I was for several years) is people thinking of you and treating you like some other kind of creature, less than fully human. SF is doing it right now by making a special "homeless card" complete with computer-aided bureaucracy to manage the permanent underclass more efficiently. There's a tech company implementing it for them. <Snark omitted> To me it's so weird that a city that really is kind and caring will mess up on implementation. Second, let's say that SF's $250B homeless policies work, meaning people get their lives together, get off the drugs or into a place where they can cope w/ their mental|emotional|physical problems or whatever it is that messed them up in the first place (and a lot of people just need a home, as they are perfectly normal and capable but e.g. some debt or a death in the family or something threw them for a loop and now they're stuck living in their car or the park or something and it's hard to get back on your feet w/o a support network, etc.) Let's say it works, and more homeless people do move here to take advantage of it. That is a good thing. God forbid ol' San Francisco should become a continent-wide renovation center for human lives, eh?
  - austhrow743 7y ago
    Not interested in your moral prescriptivism. Whether the US federal government enforces its borders or not is entirely separate from the question of of it does. It can and does. San Francisco can't and doesn't. If it does a lot to help the homeless nation wide then the levels get impacted nationwide. If SF does a lot to help the homeless in SF then rates start the same or rise as move homeless move there from elsewhere in the US. That being a good thing in general is entirely out of the scope of getting the homeless off of public transport.
    - carapace 7y ago
      > moral prescriptivism. What "moral prescriptivism"? What does that mean in plain English please? I'm not sure what you're saying. In any event, there's no legal way to stop homeless people from riding the bus. How would you even know? Brand each homeless person with a big "H" on their foreheads? Require proof-of-residence each time people board a bus?
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    > Let's say it works, and more homeless people do move here to take advantage of it. That is a good thing. God forbid ol' San Francisco should become a continent-wide renovation center for human lives, eh? Obviously something is wrong with your calculations, otherwise that would be reality. And the error is in the assumption that a tax base of a single city will sit around and pay the amount of money required to rehabilitate and/or house the mentally ill for the nation. Labor is extremely expensive, especially labor where one might have to deal with dangerous mentally ill people who may have criminal pasts. It’s ludicrous to suggest a single city could possibly tackle the issue and shoulder the tax burden of the rest of country shipping them it’s most destitute citizens. This is not even taking into account the legal matters that would need to be resolved on a federal level with involuntary housing of the mentally ill homeless population.

What is ineffective about addressing the issue locally? Why “the feds”?

by tdy721 7y ago

What is ineffective about addressing the issue locally? Why “the feds”?

Unless the solution being proposed is to brutalise the homeless to make them move elsewhere, then it needs to be enacted at the level with control over freedom of movement of people. If SF creates policies to help the homeless, more will move there than already do so.

carapace 7y ago
First, the feds should not limit the freedom of movement of a human person even if said human person does not own or rent a house. One of the messed up things about being homeless (I was for several years) is people thinking of you and treating you like some other kind of creature, less than fully human. SF is doing it right now by making a special "homeless card" complete with computer-aided bureaucracy to manage the permanent underclass more efficiently. There's a tech company implementing it for them. <Snark omitted> To me it's so weird that a city that really is kind and caring will mess up on implementation. Second, let's say that SF's $250B homeless policies work, meaning people get their lives together, get off the drugs or into a place where they can cope w/ their mental|emotional|physical problems or whatever it is that messed them up in the first place (and a lot of people just need a home, as they are perfectly normal and capable but e.g. some debt or a death in the family or something threw them for a loop and now they're stuck living in their car or the park or something and it's hard to get back on your feet w/o a support network, etc.) Let's say it works, and more homeless people do move here to take advantage of it. That is a good thing. God forbid ol' San Francisco should become a continent-wide renovation center for human lives, eh?
- austhrow743 7y ago
  Not interested in your moral prescriptivism. Whether the US federal government enforces its borders or not is entirely separate from the question of of it does. It can and does. San Francisco can't and doesn't. If it does a lot to help the homeless nation wide then the levels get impacted nationwide. If SF does a lot to help the homeless in SF then rates start the same or rise as move homeless move there from elsewhere in the US. That being a good thing in general is entirely out of the scope of getting the homeless off of public transport.
  - carapace 7y ago
    > moral prescriptivism. What "moral prescriptivism"? What does that mean in plain English please? I'm not sure what you're saying. In any event, there's no legal way to stop homeless people from riding the bus. How would you even know? Brand each homeless person with a big "H" on their foreheads? Require proof-of-residence each time people board a bus?
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  > Let's say it works, and more homeless people do move here to take advantage of it. That is a good thing. God forbid ol' San Francisco should become a continent-wide renovation center for human lives, eh? Obviously something is wrong with your calculations, otherwise that would be reality. And the error is in the assumption that a tax base of a single city will sit around and pay the amount of money required to rehabilitate and/or house the mentally ill for the nation. Labor is extremely expensive, especially labor where one might have to deal with dangerous mentally ill people who may have criminal pasts. It’s ludicrous to suggest a single city could possibly tackle the issue and shoulder the tax burden of the rest of country shipping them it’s most destitute citizens. This is not even taking into account the legal matters that would need to be resolved on a federal level with involuntary housing of the mentally ill homeless population.