3 ms·

There's an easy solution to this - electric robo-cars. With self-driving cars that can roam around, and thus not violate city ordinances against parking, there

by unono 13y ago

There's an easy solution to this - electric robo-cars. With self-driving cars that can roam around, and thus not violate city ordinances against parking, there would be no homeless. Electric charging is fairly cheap and the city could even pay it for those deemed destitute. A robo-car with shower, kitchenette, bedroom would radically transform the situation for poor people worldwide.

asdfdsa1234 13y ago
Robocars with shower, kitchenette, and bedroom would not be within the means of many homeless people. Edit for response: a robocar with all of these amenities would be an RV costing much more than $10,000; the land cost would just be shifted to the public as these vehicles take up all available parking. Not to mention that a shower and kitchenette would require utility hookups, meaning they would really need an RV camp...
- unono 13y ago
  The cost of producing a car is only a few thousand dollars, and a robo-car is just a car with a few extra smartphones. San Francisco spends about $40,000 per street homeless person http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/05/hult-gov-policy-homelessness-government-track/ http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/05/hult-gov-policy-homeless... Even in slums in India people are capable of affording low cost cars like tata nano's. And with the great efficiencies brought about by robo-cars, they would be even cheaper to manufacture and sell. And the above doesn't factor in the value of land. Much of rent/mortgage goes into paying off the actual land-owner (usually a bank). Take away that exorbitant cost and robo-cars would actually be much cheaper than even a small apartment. At $700/month, $8,400 per year VS $10,000 one-time cost robo-car.
emiliobumachar 13y ago
Those ordinances against parking are probably in place to forbid people from living in their cars. New legislation will pass to forbid technical solutios. If one could convince legislators and voters that people should not be forbidden to live in cars, than the original ordinances against parking can be revoked.
- unono 13y ago
  That won't happen. The kind of person who needs to live in a car doesn't have any political clout.
mmagin 13y ago
Clearly you don't purchase electricity in California if you think having a car roam around constantly would be cheap. (Admittedly, there may be some cheaper subsidized rates for charging electric cars today, but once everyone has one, will they be able to keep those subsidies?) Also, it'll be awesome trying to drive anywhere with the additional traffic density.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
That's just bloody dumb. Just spend the same money to build cheap apartments and give them away for free.
- unono 13y ago
  (Small tip - you can get banned from here talking like that - you wouldn't talk like that in person in polite society. Read the rules). The situation you described, 'build cheap apartments', is already the current situation. It hasn't worked has it? Land ownership is a heavily regulated industry, and wherever you have regulations you get distortions in the market caused by political activity (electrician/plumber unions, local land owners etc).

by unono 13y ago

asdfdsa1234 13y ago

Robocars with shower, kitchenette, and bedroom would not be within the means of many homeless people. Edit for response: a robocar with all of these amenities would be an RV costing much more than $10,000; the land cost would just be shifted to the public as these vehicles take up all available parking. Not to mention that a shower and kitchenette would require utility hookups, meaning they would really need an RV camp...

unono 13y ago
The cost of producing a car is only a few thousand dollars, and a robo-car is just a car with a few extra smartphones. San Francisco spends about $40,000 per street homeless person http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/05/hult-gov-policy-homelessness-government-track/ http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/05/hult-gov-policy-homeless... Even in slums in India people are capable of affording low cost cars like tata nano's. And with the great efficiencies brought about by robo-cars, they would be even cheaper to manufacture and sell. And the above doesn't factor in the value of land. Much of rent/mortgage goes into paying off the actual land-owner (usually a bank). Take away that exorbitant cost and robo-cars would actually be much cheaper than even a small apartment. At $700/month, $8,400 per year VS $10,000 one-time cost robo-car.

emiliobumachar 13y ago

Those ordinances against parking are probably in place to forbid people from living in their cars. New legislation will pass to forbid technical solutios. If one could convince legislators and voters that people should not be forbidden to live in cars, than the original ordinances against parking can be revoked.

unono 13y ago
That won't happen. The kind of person who needs to live in a car doesn't have any political clout.

mmagin 13y ago

Clearly you don't purchase electricity in California if you think having a car roam around constantly would be cheap. (Admittedly, there may be some cheaper subsidized rates for charging electric cars today, but once everyone has one, will they be able to keep those subsidies?) Also, it'll be awesome trying to drive anywhere with the additional traffic density.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

That's just bloody dumb. Just spend the same money to build cheap apartments and give them away for free.

unono 13y ago
(Small tip - you can get banned from here talking like that - you wouldn't talk like that in person in polite society. Read the rules). The situation you described, 'build cheap apartments', is already the current situation. It hasn't worked has it? Land ownership is a heavily regulated industry, and wherever you have regulations you get distortions in the market caused by political activity (electrician/plumber unions, local land owners etc).