5 ms·

I want this person off of the streets for completely selfish reasons to myself. Recovery program or not, they are going to have to live somewhere. If it's not

I want this person off of the streets for completely selfish reasons to myself. Recovery program or not, they are going to have to live somewhere. If it's not a publicly funded home then it's going to be a tent in a public park that I am paying taxes for.

oh_sigh 3y ago
It's not selfish to want the public to be able to enjoy public spaces.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  I think you're on the same page with the person you're responding to. @shepardrtc said people who get free housing should work for it, and @legitster is saying that it is in the taxpayer's self-interest to spend some taxes housing the unhoused. I took that to mean that a work requirement is secondary to getting them off the street in the first place. I agree that we should be providing drug recovery mechanisms and promoting a work ethic in people who are long-term houseless, but our options seem to be (leave them on the streets, parks and front lawns of our cities), (put them in prison), or (put them in publicly funded housing ala halfway houses). First one seems like none of us want it (unless you live in the suburbs and have fled the problem). Second one is too far, and even with good healthcare services, involuntary commitment should only happen for the severely ill. That leaves the third.
- adamrezich 3y ago
  for some reason many people have stopped caring about the notion of societal trust and cohesion—even the idea of valuing it as something to be desired and strived for. it's an odd kind of defeatist nihilism, and I've seen it spread year after year. these are the same people who will scoff when you suggest that stealing from Walmarts or Targets or whatever is wrong. they'll tell you, "dude, shrinkage is a thing, they build the cost of stolen or damaged goods into their budgets. and, anyway, why do you care so much about massive corporations' bottom lines, anyway?" obviously I don't, but I sure do care about living in a place where brazen broad-daylight theft is rare, and not something you see every time you go to the store!
  - deprecative 3y ago
    [flagged]
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
  It’s a luxury belief as well, people of wealth don’t need to care about public spaces as much, they have plenty of other options. It hurts the poor the most.
drcode 3y ago
Without a recovery program, some people will still just spend their day smashing car windows to get money for drugs, then go home to their free apartment It might still be worth it regardless, but keep that in mind
- i_am_jl 3y ago
  If that person is currently living on the street, spending their day smashing car windows to get drugs, it's absolutely still worth it.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  This hypothetical person will either smash windows and go to an apartment, or smash windows and go sleep somewhere in public. If they are already at the point of smashing windows, then there’s some element of desperation or misanthropy that makes me prefer that they spend their night somewhere private. Anyway if we’re designing hypothetical people, we can come up with sympathetic ones too, so it seems like a wash policy-wise.
  - ehvatum 3y ago
    Don’t be a tool. A heroin addict’s motivation to acquire heroin is infinitely greater than a heroin addict’s motivation for anything else in the world.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      What is the link between “make sure they sleep on the street” and “prevent them from breaking windows?” It isn’t a matter of whether or not I’m a tool. The proposed solution is just unrelated to the problem. As you say, if someone really wants heroin, they’ll get heroin. So, making their life miserable won’t stop them from getting it. What do we gain as a society from making sure they shoot up and sleep in public?
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Isn’t it a moral hazard? The nice thing about living in Ballard is I can point out to my kid what happens when you do fent, at least. If there are no consequences for behavior, what’s the disincentive for not doing it? “We will coddle you while you OD on fent” doesn’t sound appealing to me.

oh_sigh 3y ago

It's not selfish to want the public to be able to enjoy public spaces.

unethical_ban 3y ago
I think you're on the same page with the person you're responding to. @shepardrtc said people who get free housing should work for it, and @legitster is saying that it is in the taxpayer's self-interest to spend some taxes housing the unhoused. I took that to mean that a work requirement is secondary to getting them off the street in the first place. I agree that we should be providing drug recovery mechanisms and promoting a work ethic in people who are long-term houseless, but our options seem to be (leave them on the streets, parks and front lawns of our cities), (put them in prison), or (put them in publicly funded housing ala halfway houses). First one seems like none of us want it (unless you live in the suburbs and have fled the problem). Second one is too far, and even with good healthcare services, involuntary commitment should only happen for the severely ill. That leaves the third.
adamrezich 3y ago
for some reason many people have stopped caring about the notion of societal trust and cohesion—even the idea of valuing it as something to be desired and strived for. it's an odd kind of defeatist nihilism, and I've seen it spread year after year. these are the same people who will scoff when you suggest that stealing from Walmarts or Targets or whatever is wrong. they'll tell you, "dude, shrinkage is a thing, they build the cost of stolen or damaged goods into their budgets. and, anyway, why do you care so much about massive corporations' bottom lines, anyway?" obviously I don't, but I sure do care about living in a place where brazen broad-daylight theft is rare, and not something you see every time you go to the store!
- deprecative 3y ago
  [flagged]
8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
It’s a luxury belief as well, people of wealth don’t need to care about public spaces as much, they have plenty of other options. It hurts the poor the most.

drcode 3y ago

Without a recovery program, some people will still just spend their day smashing car windows to get money for drugs, then go home to their free apartment It might still be worth it regardless, but keep that in mind

i_am_jl 3y ago
If that person is currently living on the street, spending their day smashing car windows to get drugs, it's absolutely still worth it.
bee_rider 3y ago
This hypothetical person will either smash windows and go to an apartment, or smash windows and go sleep somewhere in public. If they are already at the point of smashing windows, then there’s some element of desperation or misanthropy that makes me prefer that they spend their night somewhere private. Anyway if we’re designing hypothetical people, we can come up with sympathetic ones too, so it seems like a wash policy-wise.
- ehvatum 3y ago
  Don’t be a tool. A heroin addict’s motivation to acquire heroin is infinitely greater than a heroin addict’s motivation for anything else in the world.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    What is the link between “make sure they sleep on the street” and “prevent them from breaking windows?” It isn’t a matter of whether or not I’m a tool. The proposed solution is just unrelated to the problem. As you say, if someone really wants heroin, they’ll get heroin. So, making their life miserable won’t stop them from getting it. What do we gain as a society from making sure they shoot up and sleep in public?
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Isn’t it a moral hazard? The nice thing about living in Ballard is I can point out to my kid what happens when you do fent, at least. If there are no consequences for behavior, what’s the disincentive for not doing it? “We will coddle you while you OD on fent” doesn’t sound appealing to me.