7 ms·

If there's any mention of your/my street, it definitely isn't in the sense of owning the street or owning rights to use it. Public property belongs to the publi

If there's any mention of your/my street, it definitely isn't in the sense of owning the street or owning rights to use it. Public property belongs to the public, no one stops anyone from using the streets, the distinction is using the street and living on it. Allowing camping on the streets without any real plans for sanitation, safety etc and making moral judgements against people who don't think that's a realistic solution isn't helpful. Homelessness is the result of multiple different problems ranging from insufficient jobs/wages, property costs, cost of living, health care, crime, addiction etc etc. Simply allowing camping on the sidewalk or converting al single family homes to 1bedroom studio apartments In an expensive neighborhood won't magically make the homelessness problem disappear.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
I'm not making a moral judgement against your policy positions, as I can't really see what they are. I am challenging your apparent belief that you have purchased the right to not be affected by the policies that are in place now. And I am making a moral judgement against your prioritization of property values over the comfort of your living neighbors, which frankly I find obscene.
- bdhdjnsi 3y ago
  Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, you can make it sound as if the homeowner is tone deaf to suffering and doesn't want to take on mild inconvience of property value decreasing. But let me give you a scenario, elderly people who spend decades paying off a house, the value of the house being a big part of their retirement (as is the case with most people, where a home is a big part of their net worth). Say, if the property value falls by half, so does their retirement runway and a real risk of making them candidates to be homeless too as they get older. I am not saying that a home owner purchased a right to not be affected by current policies. I am saying it never was a policy to make the street or sidewalk a residence and we shouldn't make it a policy now.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Homes should not be an investment vessel. We have policies that make them reasonable investments, which leads to price increases, scarcity, NIMBYism, etc. it never was a policy to make the street or sidewalk a residence That's literally the end-result of NIMBYism run rampant. If you don't want lower income housing (or homeless shelters, or drug treatment centers, or mental health case facilities) anywhere near your home, then you have to accept that there will be a population of people that need any of those things who now must go without, which then leads to homelessness, crime, etc. The extreme outcome is walling off neighborhoods and hiring armed guards as they do in many parts of South Africa.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    You disagree with my moral judgement about your stated view? You don't get a vote in that lol.
- pandaman 3y ago
  "Property value" is strongly correlated with the quality of life. Blaming people for wanting better (or, at least, not worsening) life for themselves and family will not get you far. Even if the current ideology encouraged that, in the long term it's not going to survive as the people's nature is not going to change.

giraffe_lady 3y ago

I'm not making a moral judgement against your policy positions, as I can't really see what they are. I am challenging your apparent belief that you have purchased the right to not be affected by the policies that are in place now. And I am making a moral judgement against your prioritization of property values over the comfort of your living neighbors, which frankly I find obscene.

bdhdjnsi 3y ago
Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, you can make it sound as if the homeowner is tone deaf to suffering and doesn't want to take on mild inconvience of property value decreasing. But let me give you a scenario, elderly people who spend decades paying off a house, the value of the house being a big part of their retirement (as is the case with most people, where a home is a big part of their net worth). Say, if the property value falls by half, so does their retirement runway and a real risk of making them candidates to be homeless too as they get older. I am not saying that a home owner purchased a right to not be affected by current policies. I am saying it never was a policy to make the street or sidewalk a residence and we shouldn't make it a policy now.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Homes should not be an investment vessel. We have policies that make them reasonable investments, which leads to price increases, scarcity, NIMBYism, etc. it never was a policy to make the street or sidewalk a residence That's literally the end-result of NIMBYism run rampant. If you don't want lower income housing (or homeless shelters, or drug treatment centers, or mental health case facilities) anywhere near your home, then you have to accept that there will be a population of people that need any of those things who now must go without, which then leads to homelessness, crime, etc. The extreme outcome is walling off neighborhoods and hiring armed guards as they do in many parts of South Africa.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  You disagree with my moral judgement about your stated view? You don't get a vote in that lol.
pandaman 3y ago
"Property value" is strongly correlated with the quality of life. Blaming people for wanting better (or, at least, not worsening) life for themselves and family will not get you far. Even if the current ideology encouraged that, in the long term it's not going to survive as the people's nature is not going to change.