4 ms·

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/2011/4960?npage=2 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/2011/496... The government spent arou

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/2011/4960?npage=2 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/2011/496... The government spent around $400k per home that is essentially a single car garage. Economics of these just don’t work. But the politicians get good publicity.

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
So here the things that stand out to me between what you linked and what the other person said... From your link: "at one-eighth of the standard cost of development...Each bedroom unit has its own bathroom and shower to allow for isolation during the pandemic". So there are special pandemic isolation considerations factored in, which surely increases costs. That doesn't sound terrible if real shelter is being provided. Do we think that California can just ship homeless people off somewhere else that won't then try to ship them back? Or do we think that the cost of building new infrastructure for them all in the middle of nowhere will be lower than the cost of building housing in already established infrastructure? I mean, it's obviously not as cheap as dumping them in the ocean, but that's not our target standard. Between your link and the other person: 300 people sounds very different than "them all".
- offtop5 5y ago
  If it wasn't completely illegal, I'd argue to give each homeless person $10,000 and to exile them for life from the state of California. I guess if you get arrested in California after that maybe you get exiled to Siberia or something
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
    It's not illegal to pay people to leave. But if your thought is that $10k is enough to get them back on their feet so that they won't be homeless anymore, why not just give them the $10k without the other part? It would both be cheaper to implement and also keep the money circulating inside the state instead of going somewhere else.
    - sus77eegeg 5y ago
      Why give them anything at all? That's even cheaper. These people aren't coming to the state to escape homelessness they're coming to the state for the free perks. Leave convincing people to change to the charities and quit wasting public money on bottomless pits.
      - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
        > Why give them anything at all? That's even cheaper. Because morality isn't measured by how much money you can save watching your neighbors rot. Well...to some people anyway. We start with the desire to benefit others as the first principle and then determine how to do it. That's called being prosocial rather than antisocial.
        jl2718 5y ago
        Yes. Clearly it’s measured by how much money you take by force from other people and give maybe 10% to anybody that ‘needs’ it.
        evgen 5y ago
        It is called the price of admission. Don't like it? Leave. Last time I checked no one was preventing you from making a run for Nevada.
        jl2718 5y ago
        The point is that there is nothing morally positive about forcing other people to pay for your ideas, even if you think that they are morally positive ideas. The poster was responding to somebody that was being forced to do something that they didn’t want to, and the response was something along the lines of moral obligation. This is obviously not the shared opinion, and has no objective basis to it, so that argument could be, and has been, abused to justify any kind of force. It would be more honest to just admit that the situation has a lot more to do with power than morals, which I think is what you are getting at: there is no voice, only exit.

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago

So here the things that stand out to me between what you linked and what the other person said... From your link: "at one-eighth of the standard cost of development...Each bedroom unit has its own bathroom and shower to allow for isolation during the pandemic". So there are special pandemic isolation considerations factored in, which surely increases costs. That doesn't sound terrible if real shelter is being provided. Do we think that California can just ship homeless people off somewhere else that won't then try to ship them back? Or do we think that the cost of building new infrastructure for them all in the middle of nowhere will be lower than the cost of building housing in already established infrastructure? I mean, it's obviously not as cheap as dumping them in the ocean, but that's not our target standard. Between your link and the other person: 300 people sounds very different than "them all".

offtop5 5y ago
If it wasn't completely illegal, I'd argue to give each homeless person $10,000 and to exile them for life from the state of California. I guess if you get arrested in California after that maybe you get exiled to Siberia or something
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
  It's not illegal to pay people to leave. But if your thought is that $10k is enough to get them back on their feet so that they won't be homeless anymore, why not just give them the $10k without the other part? It would both be cheaper to implement and also keep the money circulating inside the state instead of going somewhere else.
  - sus77eegeg 5y ago
    Why give them anything at all? That's even cheaper. These people aren't coming to the state to escape homelessness they're coming to the state for the free perks. Leave convincing people to change to the charities and quit wasting public money on bottomless pits.
    - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
      > Why give them anything at all? That's even cheaper. Because morality isn't measured by how much money you can save watching your neighbors rot. Well...to some people anyway. We start with the desire to benefit others as the first principle and then determine how to do it. That's called being prosocial rather than antisocial.
      - jl2718 5y ago
        Yes. Clearly it’s measured by how much money you take by force from other people and give maybe 10% to anybody that ‘needs’ it.
        evgen 5y ago
        It is called the price of admission. Don't like it? Leave. Last time I checked no one was preventing you from making a run for Nevada.
        jl2718 5y ago
        The point is that there is nothing morally positive about forcing other people to pay for your ideas, even if you think that they are morally positive ideas. The poster was responding to somebody that was being forced to do something that they didn’t want to, and the response was something along the lines of moral obligation. This is obviously not the shared opinion, and has no objective basis to it, so that argument could be, and has been, abused to justify any kind of force. It would be more honest to just admit that the situation has a lot more to do with power than morals, which I think is what you are getting at: there is no voice, only exit.