3 ms·

Seems to me like lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box. Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to tak

by lghh 4y ago

Seems to me like lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box. Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?

raydev 4y ago
> lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box. Yes, and people voluntarily placed themselves under indentured servitude before it was made illegal. If there's a housing shortage, the solution isn't to remove bare minimum housing standards for everyone.
stavros 4y ago
Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing It may be something a marginally housed person could afford, though. Maybe that makes room in their budget for healthier food, addiction counseling or after-school tutoring. Or maybe they're already strained and would otherwise be on the street.
entropicdrifter 4y ago
Because that's how you get the haves taking even greater advantage of the have-nots, to the point of injury, illness, and death in the name of slightly greater profits.
- lghh 4y ago
  How? By letting them sleep inside? I don't understand.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    By lowering acceptable living standards, the haves, aka the landlords, would be able to cheaply produce bottom of the barrel, barely acceptable living spaces and then since there is a housing crisis they could charge a premium for the have nots, aka the renters, in order to live in those shitty, barely acceptable homes.
silicon2401 4y ago
> Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets? I'd rather have a government that enforces a high quality of life.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  As would we all, but we have to be cognizant that enforcing a high quality of life also means ignoring people who can't afford the raised minimum. By and large, I'm a fan of American-style freedom-to-succeed-or-fail, but in the context of NIMBY anti-density housing supply crunches, it feels exceptionally cruel. 'We're going to have policies that limit supply and increase the cost of housing' + 'We're going to prevent you from finding other housing by making it illegal' is a heavy one-two punch.
- lghh 4y ago
  Sure, but if the choice is this in the immediate term vs "a government that enforces a high quality of life" in the maybe-but-not-for-certain long term, I'd much rather take steps in that direction instead of waiting for some mythical perfect situation to present itself.
- trcarney 4y ago
  Or maybe it's government involvement that has caused the whole issue in the first place and more government involvement would lead to an even bigger problem.
jcadam 4y ago
An open floor plan office has plenty of space for rows of bunks. Better than sleeping outside.

by lghh 4y ago

raydev 4y ago

> lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box. Yes, and people voluntarily placed themselves under indentured servitude before it was made illegal. If there's a housing shortage, the solution isn't to remove bare minimum housing standards for everyone.

stavros 4y ago

Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing It may be something a marginally housed person could afford, though. Maybe that makes room in their budget for healthier food, addiction counseling or after-school tutoring. Or maybe they're already strained and would otherwise be on the street.

entropicdrifter 4y ago

Because that's how you get the haves taking even greater advantage of the have-nots, to the point of injury, illness, and death in the name of slightly greater profits.

lghh 4y ago
How? By letting them sleep inside? I don't understand.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  By lowering acceptable living standards, the haves, aka the landlords, would be able to cheaply produce bottom of the barrel, barely acceptable living spaces and then since there is a housing crisis they could charge a premium for the have nots, aka the renters, in order to live in those shitty, barely acceptable homes.

silicon2401 4y ago

> Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets? I'd rather have a government that enforces a high quality of life.

ethbr0 4y ago
As would we all, but we have to be cognizant that enforcing a high quality of life also means ignoring people who can't afford the raised minimum. By and large, I'm a fan of American-style freedom-to-succeed-or-fail, but in the context of NIMBY anti-density housing supply crunches, it feels exceptionally cruel. 'We're going to have policies that limit supply and increase the cost of housing' + 'We're going to prevent you from finding other housing by making it illegal' is a heavy one-two punch.
lghh 4y ago
Sure, but if the choice is this in the immediate term vs "a government that enforces a high quality of life" in the maybe-but-not-for-certain long term, I'd much rather take steps in that direction instead of waiting for some mythical perfect situation to present itself.
trcarney 4y ago
Or maybe it's government involvement that has caused the whole issue in the first place and more government involvement would lead to an even bigger problem.

jcadam 4y ago

An open floor plan office has plenty of space for rows of bunks. Better than sleeping outside.