3 ms·

If this is NOT taken down by local authorities, I will surprised, but also I will be confused why it is being allowed now, after decades of having this problem.

by proc0 5y ago

If this is NOT taken down by local authorities, I will surprised, but also I will be confused why it is being allowed now, after decades of having this problem. This is the most straight forward way to solve the problem, by allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise, and just offering basic, cheap shelter. Oakland had this problem for decades and NOW they allow this? The lack of problem solving skills by the government there is incredible.

gruez 5y ago
>This is the most straight forward way to solve the problem, by allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise except, that the big open spaces were used for something (eg. parks/greenspace/recreation), so letting homeless people camp there denies other residents from using that space for those purposes. it also ignores the externalities associated with such encampments. finally, it's not really a solution and more of a band-aid. the amount of parks we have is finite, so eventually we're going to run out of space.
- proc0 5y ago
  I agree, but in these cities it's such a problem that you can't use these spaces anyway because people set up their tents there. I also agree it's a band-aid, but it's a much better band-aid than the existing attempts, as far as my understanding. And to be clear, had the local gov. considered this, they could have provided the solution themselves, which would have made it safer and better, and in theory, faster.
musicale 5y ago
> If this is NOT taken down by local authorities, I will surprised > allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise, and just offering basic, cheap shelter It has to be something that isn't a huge fire or safety hazard, to avoid another Ghost Ship warehouse fire.
- proc0 5y ago
  Agreed, but solutions to that also exist. In my opinion, it's solving for shelter, hygiene, and water, in a safe and scaleable way. This provides reliable temporary solution for people, to then get their options sorted out, and eventually I think people would try and get out of that themselves, with exception of the ones that really need personalized assistance.
jollybean 5y ago
Favelas are definitely not the answer. Sewage, electricity, code, safety, fire etc. and also solid guarantees on attracting some incorrigible types. What would be interesting however are much smaller 'regular' housing units made available in more urban environments. One of the problems in the US is that you have to 'go way out there' to get really cheap housing ... but you cant walk to anything ... you need a car. Which is a pain. Smaller, denser towns would be nice. That said - nothing works at all unless people have some kind of access to reasonable employment.
- proc0 5y ago
  > One of the problems in the US is that you have to 'go way out there' to get really cheap housing ... but you cant walk to anything ... you need a car. Which is a pain. Couldn't agree more. I also think this is the root of many problems in American culture. Everyone has social pressure to own a car and live that lifestyle, but it just raises the bar for poor people needlessly when towns and cities could be structured differently.

by proc0 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

>This is the most straight forward way to solve the problem, by allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise except, that the big open spaces were used for something (eg. parks/greenspace/recreation), so letting homeless people camp there denies other residents from using that space for those purposes. it also ignores the externalities associated with such encampments. finally, it's not really a solution and more of a band-aid. the amount of parks we have is finite, so eventually we're going to run out of space.

proc0 5y ago
I agree, but in these cities it's such a problem that you can't use these spaces anyway because people set up their tents there. I also agree it's a band-aid, but it's a much better band-aid than the existing attempts, as far as my understanding. And to be clear, had the local gov. considered this, they could have provided the solution themselves, which would have made it safer and better, and in theory, faster.

musicale 5y ago

> If this is NOT taken down by local authorities, I will surprised > allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise, and just offering basic, cheap shelter It has to be something that isn't a huge fire or safety hazard, to avoid another Ghost Ship warehouse fire.

proc0 5y ago
Agreed, but solutions to that also exist. In my opinion, it's solving for shelter, hygiene, and water, in a safe and scaleable way. This provides reliable temporary solution for people, to then get their options sorted out, and eventually I think people would try and get out of that themselves, with exception of the ones that really need personalized assistance.

jollybean 5y ago

Favelas are definitely not the answer. Sewage, electricity, code, safety, fire etc. and also solid guarantees on attracting some incorrigible types. What would be interesting however are much smaller 'regular' housing units made available in more urban environments. One of the problems in the US is that you have to 'go way out there' to get really cheap housing ... but you cant walk to anything ... you need a car. Which is a pain. Smaller, denser towns would be nice. That said - nothing works at all unless people have some kind of access to reasonable employment.

proc0 5y ago
> One of the problems in the US is that you have to 'go way out there' to get really cheap housing ... but you cant walk to anything ... you need a car. Which is a pain. Couldn't agree more. I also think this is the root of many problems in American culture. Everyone has social pressure to own a car and live that lifestyle, but it just raises the bar for poor people needlessly when towns and cities could be structured differently.