3 ms·

Most people have little choice in where they live. It doesn't matter if the city you live in is expensive: When you are poor, you can't move. Some people might

Most people have little choice in where they live. It doesn't matter if the city you live in is expensive: When you are poor, you can't move. Some people might like to move: Others would not. Forcing folks to move can easily mean forcing folks to leave behind what family and friends they have, and seems cruel. Some of the folks will have jobs that don't pay enough to live in the city they work in, and I don't think we should punish people by making them have hours of commuting either. "You are too poor to live here" is also "you are too poor to afford to take this basic job" as well as "you are too poor to stay around anyone you know".

jobjob 6y ago
People move all the time when they get a job. Why should people who have lost a job and are about to be homeless not be required to move to a lower cost area in order to get free housing? If need be transportation can be provided.
- dTal 6y ago
  I take it you've not been in this situation.
  - jobjob 6y ago
    I’ve gotten jobs and moved. I’ve lost jobs and moved. What’s your point?
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  Sure. Poor people don't do this all the time, though. Moving requires things like deposits and first months' rent. If you change utility companies? More deposits. I've had to turn down jobs because I couldn't afford the startup costs. One was just red shirts, and I couldn't afford one. A time or two, the reason I was able to move was because I could stay with family. Transportation isn't enough. People should be able to live near work: Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes. Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter, a basic need. And so on.
  - jobjob 6y ago
    Did you even read my comment before replying? How does > free housing > transportation NOT solve any issues with deposits or rents? > People should be able to live near work Sure, there are lots of things that should be, but aren't. Not everybody can live near work, especially not in the nation's most expensive areas. Being able to live near work is not a basic right, nor should it be. > Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes. Ideally not, but if that's all you can get then at least it should be an option. That being said, the best way to level the field is to have the aforementioned subsidized means of leaving for a low cost of living area. > Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter Why not? If you cannot afford to live in a high cost area, why should somebody else pay for your right to live there? If you cannot pay your way, what right do you have to occupy a space that somebody else needs and can pay for it? Merely being there first should not confer any special privilege. Having shelter is a basic need. Living near people you know is not.
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
> Most people have little choice in where they live. It doesn't matter if the city you live in is expensive: When you are poor, you can't move. Some people might like to move: Others would not. That is only true if someone has roots: a job and/or family. If you are single and don’t have many possessions, let alone a job or anyone to look after or be looked after, you are incredibly mobile. Prisons on egress will even ay for your bus ticket to go wherever, if you are without any roots to return to (because they never existed or were long burned away), that literally can be anywhere. Finally, if you need help to survive and live in a place like Great Falls MT, you aren’t going to get anything there unless you family or some other roots to rely on. You’ll probably wind up in Spokane and then Seattle. If you weren’t mobile, you probably did get help or weren’t helpless in the first place. I guess there is some confusion between poor and homeless. I totally agree that poor people should be given help to keep living in their own communities, but not necessarily to move into a higher priced community. People without any housing at all are a different story all together. There is no reason why they should be housed in higher priced cities if they don’t have jobs to commute to in the first place.

jobjob 6y ago

People move all the time when they get a job. Why should people who have lost a job and are about to be homeless not be required to move to a lower cost area in order to get free housing? If need be transportation can be provided.

dTal 6y ago
I take it you've not been in this situation.
- jobjob 6y ago
  I’ve gotten jobs and moved. I’ve lost jobs and moved. What’s your point?
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
Sure. Poor people don't do this all the time, though. Moving requires things like deposits and first months' rent. If you change utility companies? More deposits. I've had to turn down jobs because I couldn't afford the startup costs. One was just red shirts, and I couldn't afford one. A time or two, the reason I was able to move was because I could stay with family. Transportation isn't enough. People should be able to live near work: Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes. Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter, a basic need. And so on.
- jobjob 6y ago
  Did you even read my comment before replying? How does > free housing > transportation NOT solve any issues with deposits or rents? > People should be able to live near work Sure, there are lots of things that should be, but aren't. Not everybody can live near work, especially not in the nation's most expensive areas. Being able to live near work is not a basic right, nor should it be. > Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes. Ideally not, but if that's all you can get then at least it should be an option. That being said, the best way to level the field is to have the aforementioned subsidized means of leaving for a low cost of living area. > Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter Why not? If you cannot afford to live in a high cost area, why should somebody else pay for your right to live there? If you cannot pay your way, what right do you have to occupy a space that somebody else needs and can pay for it? Merely being there first should not confer any special privilege. Having shelter is a basic need. Living near people you know is not.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago

> Most people have little choice in where they live. It doesn't matter if the city you live in is expensive: When you are poor, you can't move. Some people might like to move: Others would not. That is only true if someone has roots: a job and/or family. If you are single and don’t have many possessions, let alone a job or anyone to look after or be looked after, you are incredibly mobile. Prisons on egress will even ay for your bus ticket to go wherever, if you are without any roots to return to (because they never existed or were long burned away), that literally can be anywhere. Finally, if you need help to survive and live in a place like Great Falls MT, you aren’t going to get anything there unless you family or some other roots to rely on. You’ll probably wind up in Spokane and then Seattle. If you weren’t mobile, you probably did get help or weren’t helpless in the first place. I guess there is some confusion between poor and homeless. I totally agree that poor people should be given help to keep living in their own communities, but not necessarily to move into a higher priced community. People without any housing at all are a different story all together. There is no reason why they should be housed in higher priced cities if they don’t have jobs to commute to in the first place.