4 ms·

That doesn’t answer the question. I’m not opposed to building more shelter space. But what do you do with the people who don’t want to stay there? Do you mak

by mulmen 5y ago

That doesn’t answer the question. I’m not opposed to building more shelter space. But what do you do with the people who don’t want to stay there? Do you make it non-optional? Do you just accept that there will always be some people living on the street? At what point can a camping ban in public parks be reinstated and enforced? Can it ever be? Should it?

sdenton4 5y ago
You're on hacker news. The first rule of optimization is to /benchmark and profile first/ and then work on the part of the problem that will give you the biggest wins. Don't just work on the imagined problem, because you will usually be working on the wrong thing.
- mulmen 5y ago
  I thought hackernews was a place for thoughtful conversation. How should we optimize solutions to homelessness? Is there some ideal amount of homelessness? Have we already reached it? Recall that this thread started with a comment offering a two part solution that does not address an unwillingness to stay in shelters.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
I think that camping should be legitimized and allowed. For example, I saw in LA camping areas being cleaned by city workers peacefully (with a token police car watching over) and it seemed like a nice middle ground.
- mulmen 5y ago
  Do you mean dedicated camping areas or putting tents in existing public parks? Something like https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ but for tents?
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    Honestly, I don't know exactly. I haven't thought this through in detail. I just think that living without being involved with a building and such is valid, and I'd like to see it recognized. I believe in harmonious co-existence, so I guess I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way", which is what I've practiced for lack of a better option, though I usually don't use a tent in the city. I think it is legitimate and valid for an individual to exist and live without being involved in paperwork, joining some kind of program, etc. And I support anyone going that way.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      > I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way" I think that's a reasonable take. I don't think that living in a public park is a valid lifestyle choice. Those places can't serve their purpose as public areas for recreation if they are also someone's home. I understand that people do it now because they are desperate. We should provide them with better options. Or at least acceptable options that allow the rest of the citizens of the city to also live their lives. I am not opposed to dedicated property or areas for tent living, but it can't be in existing parks or other public spaces like sidewalks and transit facilities. And there have to be amenities such as showers, bathrooms and trash service. Essentially a state campground in the city.
      - forgotmypw17 5y ago
        I don't think mandating what's valid and not valid on public areas is valid. How is "recreation" any more valid than "sleeping"?
        mulmen 5y ago
        That’s disingenuous. I’m not opposed to sleeping in parks. Like, sure, take a nap. But no, you can’t live there. Take a look at the homeless camps in Seattle parks and greenbelts. That’s not staying out of anyone’s way. There’s nothing harmonious about it. Basic services are mandatory in camping areas. Without bathrooms we get human waste accumulation and runoff. Without trash service we get fires. This isn’t hypothetical. Go look around Seattle. Dictating what is done with public spaces is absolutely valid. That is how civilization works. It’s why we even have public spaces. Without rules on what’s allowed in parks they’d be developed into something else.

by mulmen 5y ago

sdenton4 5y ago

You're on hacker news. The first rule of optimization is to /benchmark and profile first/ and then work on the part of the problem that will give you the biggest wins. Don't just work on the imagined problem, because you will usually be working on the wrong thing.

mulmen 5y ago
I thought hackernews was a place for thoughtful conversation. How should we optimize solutions to homelessness? Is there some ideal amount of homelessness? Have we already reached it? Recall that this thread started with a comment offering a two part solution that does not address an unwillingness to stay in shelters.

forgotmypw17 5y ago

I think that camping should be legitimized and allowed. For example, I saw in LA camping areas being cleaned by city workers peacefully (with a token police car watching over) and it seemed like a nice middle ground.

mulmen 5y ago
Do you mean dedicated camping areas or putting tents in existing public parks? Something like https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ but for tents?
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  Honestly, I don't know exactly. I haven't thought this through in detail. I just think that living without being involved with a building and such is valid, and I'd like to see it recognized. I believe in harmonious co-existence, so I guess I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way", which is what I've practiced for lack of a better option, though I usually don't use a tent in the city. I think it is legitimate and valid for an individual to exist and live without being involved in paperwork, joining some kind of program, etc. And I support anyone going that way.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    > I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way" I think that's a reasonable take. I don't think that living in a public park is a valid lifestyle choice. Those places can't serve their purpose as public areas for recreation if they are also someone's home. I understand that people do it now because they are desperate. We should provide them with better options. Or at least acceptable options that allow the rest of the citizens of the city to also live their lives. I am not opposed to dedicated property or areas for tent living, but it can't be in existing parks or other public spaces like sidewalks and transit facilities. And there have to be amenities such as showers, bathrooms and trash service. Essentially a state campground in the city.
    - forgotmypw17 5y ago
      I don't think mandating what's valid and not valid on public areas is valid. How is "recreation" any more valid than "sleeping"?
      - mulmen 5y ago
        That’s disingenuous. I’m not opposed to sleeping in parks. Like, sure, take a nap. But no, you can’t live there. Take a look at the homeless camps in Seattle parks and greenbelts. That’s not staying out of anyone’s way. There’s nothing harmonious about it. Basic services are mandatory in camping areas. Without bathrooms we get human waste accumulation and runoff. Without trash service we get fires. This isn’t hypothetical. Go look around Seattle. Dictating what is done with public spaces is absolutely valid. That is how civilization works. It’s why we even have public spaces. Without rules on what’s allowed in parks they’d be developed into something else.