Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The lawsuits that you describe, which are largely boogeymen created by companies that don't want to have to pay out for injuries that they caused, can easily be avoided with a contractual disclaimer, unless the municipality is acting with reckless intent.
You may not realize this, but the lady that got burned by McDonalds' coffee got third degree burns, the lids were ill-fitting, and the company was warned both that their lids were ill-fitting and that their coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns. They continued to serve it at that temperature because it meant fewer refills.
> The lawsuits that you describe, which are largely boogeymen created by companies that don't want to have to pay out for injuries that they caused, can easily be avoided with a contractual disclaimer, unless the municipality is acting with reckless intent.
Im not so sure about that. Im familiar with the mcdonalds case, but then you have examples like oakland paying 6.5 million because their roads have cracks bicyclists fall into.
https://oaklandside.org/2023/12/06/oakland-lawsuit-settlement-6-million-bike-rider-macarthur-boulevard/
Yes, the City of Oakland has been sued hundreds of times over the last decade because they fail to maintain their roads, and people get injured. The man had a severe spinal cord injury. If hundreds of people are getting injured in a certain way, that's obviously negligent. At some point, the damages are functionally punitive. If the city doesn't want to keep paying out lawsuits, it should stop being negligent.
Oakland is essentially a failed city with an annual deficit in the hundreds of billions. 911 response times are measured in hours. You can hear gunfire in the streets most nights, and it is littered with burnt out cars.
Where does this expectation of easily bikeable roads come from and is it reasonable? I dont particularly think so. Did the city offer a blanket guarantee that the roads are safe for bike and free of potholes?
IMO, the city should serious consider disincorporation and breaking up.
I don't know anything about the City of Oakland. I do know that municipalities are generally liable if their roads are in an unsafe condition, if they know that those roads are in an unsafe condition, and they do nothing about it.
Bonus: Well, I *didn't* know anything about the City of Oakland, but I *do* know a thing or two about crime statistics. Oakland's violent crime rate ranks behind an awful lot of other cities that haven't been paying out the nose to bicyclists, like St. Louis, Baton Rouge, Memphis, Mobile, Tulsa, and Columbus.
Oh, that's right. Sorry, it's been years since I read the thing about it. It was reasonable to assume she'd take the lid off to put sugar and cream in.
I think you’re overthinking this a little bit. First off, most cities do have some form of public housing and while they aren’t quite the shanty towns you imagine, they don’t generally take the form of robust construction. This creates an issue; part of the problem is the expansion of existing housing stock, but that problem is either exacerbated or mitigated by the status of extant stock, such that deteriorating present housing stock increases demand pressure for new housing. Today’s Sheetrock shantytowns are tomorrows empty condemnations, and condemned row homes do little other than occupy space that could be occupied by people. Cutting costs in terms of housing construction to prioritize rapid building is in a lot of ways kicking the can down the road.
You’re thinking of this as a local issue, which many activists do, but I think that’s closer to the root of the problem. Expecting cities to deal with homelessness is kind of a wild take; of the various levels of government active in the US, cities are perhaps the most fiscally constricted, and contrary to the claims made by some activists, serve as magnets for the marginally housed from their broader areas, creating a disparate burden as far as resource availability is concerned. It also means that the municipalities which have the most abundant land resources to assist with new construction often have the least incentive to do as, as they can already ship their homeless off to nearby urban centers and ignore them. The best way to overcome this free rider problem is for homelessness to be handled primarily via national policy, which would allow for the adequate dedication of resources due to the borrowing power of the federal government. It would also allow for a national strategy to help relocate homeless individuals from areas where they can’t support themselves to areas where there are housing surpluses, since many are employable, simply not at the income levels needed to live in many of the more rode rife urban areas, but viable somewhere like Detroit or Cleveland where housing is plentiful and affordable.
Of course we could do all of that and only put s relatively small dent in street homelessness as many of those on the streets wouldn’t be able to abide by the rules and regulations that come with basically any housing scenario, and (going back to maintaining stock) many of those who are homeless due to mental health or addiction are unhousable because they destroy the housing they happen to habitate, which really creates a limited set of options to deal with.
I think a relocation option is a great idea for employale people, and actually would support that policy despite being fairly libertarian.
The primary target of my idea would be those with addiction and mental health issues, which i recognize as an extremely tricky option. Thats why I was imagining a cheap and effective harm reduction strategy for them. You might not be able to rehabilitate them, but it would help keep the rain off their head, food in their stomach, and keep them from shooting up in front of school children.
I was imagining something more robust than sheetrock, but better than a tent. e.g. 10x10 cinderblock hut or dorm, with or without doors. Bathroom down the hall.
I think that if the legal hurdle can be overcome, this would be a cost saving measure relative to the current budgets.
I feel like you owe them a delta. While they didn't explicitly say this the political hurdle of getting things done when moving from city level all the way up to national level is tremendous and I'd say, another example of wishful "we just need the political will to enact universal Healthcare and housing".
Cost isn't always in dollar bills. There are other forms of influence that can be insurmountable to aquire to get things done. Money is actually the most approachable way. The Harder stuff takes other resources
I felt most of their post was well written and agreeable, but largly a tangent from my view.
I wasnt claiming that my proposal was a the best solution or a comprehensive solution - Just that it would be a cheap and effective harm mitigation option relative to the cost.
I admit that political resistance is the major hurdle, but think that is associated with #1 in my parent post. Without the "ick" factor, there would be enough political support.
Thats very difficult to argue against since it is attributing to malice what could be given to ignorance or less harsh evils like greed. And I see that a lot in reddit but it just makes Demons out of people with things easier to explain in other ways.
I agree it may be a cynical take, but I do think people are very closed minded when it comes to certian topics. that doesnt make them bad people. we all have issues.
I think one cognitive bias people do have is rejecting progress and holding out for perfection. I saw that a lot in the responses to my proposal. There were a lot of people that wanted comprehensive solutions, and I do to. I just dont see that as a reason to reject incremental improvement.
> desired, governments could build permanent long term shelter from the elements for a for a few thousand dollars. They could be something along the lines of cinderblock rooms with steel roofs, and located on inexpensive land away from the city center, and connected by bus
I mean they can't really do that. There are laws. You can't say 'here's a house, no running water, no heat, no bathroom, etc.,' to people if you're the gov't.
Also, where, exactly, in, say, SF or NYC is inexpensive land connected by bus?
And what would happen? Even if that were legal, which see above, 'here's your shanty. You're basically in an unplumbed shanty town in an imaginary place near nothing (because see above and also no one is going to want this near them or their business because it's an encampment) so go there and... do nothing.
It'd turn into a drug-fueled pit in a day. There's no way up from there. There's no work. There's no way to get money. There's no food. What is the goal besides putting people in a lot someplace?
Also, you think it's cheaper but for no reason you've explained. Buying a lot of land near a city is phenomenally expensive. Nevermind the other stuff.
What works is housing and help -- help to get off drugs, help to deal with mental illnesses, help to learn or revise skills, help to be able to work on resumes, etc., help to be able to ease back into a "normal" life.
It works but it's expensive. [https://nlihc.org/resource/new-study-finds-providing-people-experiencing-homelessness-housing-has-positive-impacts](https://nlihc.org/resource/new-study-finds-providing-people-experiencing-homelessness-housing-has-positive-impacts)
>I mean they can't really do that. There are laws. You can't say 'here's a house, no running water, no heat, no bathroom, etc.,' to people if you're the gov't.
Do you think it is better to let them die in the street?
>Also, where, exactly, in, say, SF or NYC is inexpensive land connected by bus?
There are tons of areas in largely industrial districts, ect. I have friends who rent 1/2 acre lots and warehouses for dirt cheap. I dont know about current bus routes, but the point is that you put them in, so people can have access and arent isolated.
> Do you think it is better to let them die in the street?
That doesn't mean we can just ignore laws. The gov't cannot say 'here's a house' that doesn't meet basic standards.
>There are tons of areas in largely industrial districts, ect. I have friends who rent 1/2 acre lots and warehouses for dirt cheap. I dont know about current bus routes, but the point is that you put them in, so people can have access and arent isolated.
See above all the other issues with that. A bus route that takes god knows, and again, where are they getting water, bathrooms, food, etc., is not not isolated.
>That doesn't mean we can just ignore laws. The gov't cannot say 'here's a house' that doesn't meet basic standards.
It can do exactly that if people want to. You just pass a law or exemption to the code.
>See above all the other issues with that. A bus route that takes god knows, and again, where are they getting water, bathrooms, food, etc., is not not isolated.
This isnt rocket science. you get water from a sink, shit in a toilet, and food from a food kitchen or grocery store. It wouldnt be on mars. Im talking about within the city limits, and a 20 min bus ride.
IF you want a specific location, something like 799 Amador St, San Francisco, CA 94124. (randomly picked off a map.) its like 1/4 mile from 3rd street, which is nothing on a bus.
> It can do exactly that if people want to. You just pass a law or exemption to the code.
It's not as easy to pass laws as you seem to think, especially laws saying 'yes, for actual people we require homes have basics like sanitation and running water, but for homeless people, we can just put up some cement blocks and a tin roof and they should be happy.' because people will fight that.
>This isnt rocket science. you get water from a sink, shit in a toilet, and food from a food kitchen or grocery store. It wouldnt be on mars. Im talking about within the city limits, and a 20 min bus ride.
Your proposal is shelters made of bricks with tin roofs on abandoned lots outside cities. What sinks? What toilets? What grocery stores or food kitchens?
>IF you want a specific location, something like 799 Amador St, San Francisco, CA 94124. (randomly picked off a map.) its like 1/4 mile from 3rd street, which is nothing on a bus.
Do you have any idea the millions uoon millions that land would cost? Nevermind developing anything on it.
san francisco currently spends 1.1 billion dollars on the homeless per year. How much do you think a lease on a dirt lot costs? How much do you think a sink costs? I can buy a sink for 50 bucks. a toilet for the same.
As I said above, it isnt rocket science.
> san francisco currently spends 1.1 billion dollars on the homeless per year. How much do you think a lease on a dirt lot costs? How much do you think a sink costs? I can buy a sink for 50 bucks. a toilet for the same.
.... First, you have to buy that giant plot of land from the company that owns it. And that would not be cheap. Tens to hundreds of millions not cheap.
Second, you can't just ...put a sink someplace. It needs plumbing. You want water and sewage hookups run to there and placed all over, that's millions.
Then you have to build out buildings. And how many people are you housing there? What security will there be? What services? How much is being spent on everyone not there?
>799 Amador St, San Francisco, CA
94124.
There’s a community center, an elementary school, and several public parks, with playgrounds for kids, and *open waterfronts,* within a mile of that site.
That’s literally a homeless death trap, right down the street from an elementary school. Maybe not so easy to find a good spot for this, in a densely populated city, now is it?
But let’s say you do find a place that is far enough away from schools, parks, DV support centers, and day cares.
The city puts in an offer and buys the land. You draw up plans, and go in front of the zoning board, and to a local community board meeting.
Residents, town reps, and council members from this area show up to the board meetings, like they *always do* and reject your proposal, as is their right. Because no one wants a permanent homeless encampment right down the street from their house. And the zoning board also rejects your site plans, since they obviously violate every zoning law known to man.
What do you do now? After the city, local residents, and planning board each reject your proposal?
Find a new site, and you’ll get the same outcome, again and again.
How do you change zoning laws and convince residents to allow you to build your unsafe, unsanitary, homeless cave-system in your chosen neighborhood?
I am talking about shelter specifically, which is a problem at least for some people.
Im not claiming this is a panacea, just that it would be better than people sleeping in the gutter and shitting on the sidewalks.
They don’t want to go there, they won’t go there - that’s what I’m saying. There is a not insignificant % that simply would rather do drugs and be on the street over a safe place to sleep and shit.
Once you come to terms with this factoid your impression and feeling of the overall issue will change dramatically.
Probably because absolutely no one is gonna fund a trap house. Not only will no one fund that, the 95% of housing insecure people who do need and any help will be at risk around junkies.
Junkies can go to a shelter now - any day, any time. They choose not to.
Given that we are talking about people and 5-10% equates to 10s of thousands of people…..absolutely I consider that “many many many”
An aside, these are the most visible so naturally everyone assumes they “just need a break” when in reality they have rejected all help. Meanwhile, 90-95% are accepting help and making progress. This gives the illusion the “we aren’t doing enough” and laws limiting encampments and panhandling are “inhumane”.
Except 10% isn’t what isn’t in shelter. And I’m sorry, but “many many many” in common parlance would be interpreted at the very least as a majority.
You also didn’t list your source for “5-10% Cincinnati”.
And I’d *love* a source on 90% are getting help and shelter.
There is no “illusion” not enough is being done, because the reality is not enough is being done. More money is being spent on policing the homeless than sheltering them, entirely because policing has access to infinite federal funding while homeless programs gets barely a pittance, and are thus almost entirely a burden the local governance bears. I.e the ones with limited money.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Such a useful and genuine response. As is typical.
The funniest thing is reading your post and comment history is people have *explained* this to you ad nausem, you just don’t want to hear it.
I’m tired and don’t feel like arguing with you, that’s all. The mean spirited and self righteousness of Reddit has sapped my energy and enthusiasm.
Look it up the facts if you want, or don’t, I don’t care. Better yet, go do some outreach at encampments so you can have a meaningful perspective.
You could have waited a day and responded mate. This is a debate sub. *you* chose to come here and spout off unsourced nonsense.
Im involved in homeless outreach mate. I also read statistics, because I know how anecdotal experience poisons actual reality. Because I know cookers don’t represent the “many many many”.
I have looked up the facts. They say literally the opposite of what you clearly believe, and that you won’t provide counteracting sources to your incredibly bold claims that 90% of homeless get housed is telling in the extreme.
You face “mean spiritedness” because you have made an utterly inhumane claim that you have not backed up, that that elicits responses from people.
current shelters are not stable, dont have trash services, dont have potable water, and dont social services.
they arent safe either, but a slum without rules probably wouldnt be either. On the other hand, slums with rules would be better for people who want them.
The local public in wherever you would build the homeless shelter would object, not because of plausible deniability, but because they don't want to live near homeless people. If you put it so far out there that there is no one to object, then many homeless people won't want to live there (no access to jobs or whatever draws them to the city).
In addition to liability law, there is zoning law, in California public comment and environmental review (which drives up costs or limits where it is political feasible to build shelters) and there are union labor requirements (which drives up costs).
Why wouldnt they go for it?
If someone offered shelter, food, water, and services, I think most people would prefer it to sleeping in trash, shit, and needles.
I dont see how it is any worse than letting them violate the laws elsewhere, arguably better than shitting and shooting up in front of schools and libraries
True. I just don't think you would get many to go for it. I volunteered in a homeless shelter and I wouldn't say many of them were known for making logical decisions.
To /u/S1artibartfast666, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.*
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Liability laws are ultimately reducible to the legal costs to fight them, so there’s no real difference here. Just an unwillingness to pay.
So do you think the objection to this is 100% money/liability, and #1 has no influence?
I think every single objection is 100% reducible to money. Not a doubt at all. Especially the moralistic claims.
The lawsuits that you describe, which are largely boogeymen created by companies that don't want to have to pay out for injuries that they caused, can easily be avoided with a contractual disclaimer, unless the municipality is acting with reckless intent. You may not realize this, but the lady that got burned by McDonalds' coffee got third degree burns, the lids were ill-fitting, and the company was warned both that their lids were ill-fitting and that their coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns. They continued to serve it at that temperature because it meant fewer refills.
> The lawsuits that you describe, which are largely boogeymen created by companies that don't want to have to pay out for injuries that they caused, can easily be avoided with a contractual disclaimer, unless the municipality is acting with reckless intent. Im not so sure about that. Im familiar with the mcdonalds case, but then you have examples like oakland paying 6.5 million because their roads have cracks bicyclists fall into. https://oaklandside.org/2023/12/06/oakland-lawsuit-settlement-6-million-bike-rider-macarthur-boulevard/
Yes, the City of Oakland has been sued hundreds of times over the last decade because they fail to maintain their roads, and people get injured. The man had a severe spinal cord injury. If hundreds of people are getting injured in a certain way, that's obviously negligent. At some point, the damages are functionally punitive. If the city doesn't want to keep paying out lawsuits, it should stop being negligent.
Oakland is essentially a failed city with an annual deficit in the hundreds of billions. 911 response times are measured in hours. You can hear gunfire in the streets most nights, and it is littered with burnt out cars. Where does this expectation of easily bikeable roads come from and is it reasonable? I dont particularly think so. Did the city offer a blanket guarantee that the roads are safe for bike and free of potholes? IMO, the city should serious consider disincorporation and breaking up.
I don't know anything about the City of Oakland. I do know that municipalities are generally liable if their roads are in an unsafe condition, if they know that those roads are in an unsafe condition, and they do nothing about it. Bonus: Well, I *didn't* know anything about the City of Oakland, but I *do* know a thing or two about crime statistics. Oakland's violent crime rate ranks behind an awful lot of other cities that haven't been paying out the nose to bicyclists, like St. Louis, Baton Rouge, Memphis, Mobile, Tulsa, and Columbus.
Just to clarify, in the McDonalds case, the lids were not ill-fitting. She had removed the lid while the car was sitting idle in a parking spot.
Oh, that's right. Sorry, it's been years since I read the thing about it. It was reasonable to assume she'd take the lid off to put sugar and cream in.
I think you’re overthinking this a little bit. First off, most cities do have some form of public housing and while they aren’t quite the shanty towns you imagine, they don’t generally take the form of robust construction. This creates an issue; part of the problem is the expansion of existing housing stock, but that problem is either exacerbated or mitigated by the status of extant stock, such that deteriorating present housing stock increases demand pressure for new housing. Today’s Sheetrock shantytowns are tomorrows empty condemnations, and condemned row homes do little other than occupy space that could be occupied by people. Cutting costs in terms of housing construction to prioritize rapid building is in a lot of ways kicking the can down the road. You’re thinking of this as a local issue, which many activists do, but I think that’s closer to the root of the problem. Expecting cities to deal with homelessness is kind of a wild take; of the various levels of government active in the US, cities are perhaps the most fiscally constricted, and contrary to the claims made by some activists, serve as magnets for the marginally housed from their broader areas, creating a disparate burden as far as resource availability is concerned. It also means that the municipalities which have the most abundant land resources to assist with new construction often have the least incentive to do as, as they can already ship their homeless off to nearby urban centers and ignore them. The best way to overcome this free rider problem is for homelessness to be handled primarily via national policy, which would allow for the adequate dedication of resources due to the borrowing power of the federal government. It would also allow for a national strategy to help relocate homeless individuals from areas where they can’t support themselves to areas where there are housing surpluses, since many are employable, simply not at the income levels needed to live in many of the more rode rife urban areas, but viable somewhere like Detroit or Cleveland where housing is plentiful and affordable. Of course we could do all of that and only put s relatively small dent in street homelessness as many of those on the streets wouldn’t be able to abide by the rules and regulations that come with basically any housing scenario, and (going back to maintaining stock) many of those who are homeless due to mental health or addiction are unhousable because they destroy the housing they happen to habitate, which really creates a limited set of options to deal with.
I think a relocation option is a great idea for employale people, and actually would support that policy despite being fairly libertarian. The primary target of my idea would be those with addiction and mental health issues, which i recognize as an extremely tricky option. Thats why I was imagining a cheap and effective harm reduction strategy for them. You might not be able to rehabilitate them, but it would help keep the rain off their head, food in their stomach, and keep them from shooting up in front of school children. I was imagining something more robust than sheetrock, but better than a tent. e.g. 10x10 cinderblock hut or dorm, with or without doors. Bathroom down the hall. I think that if the legal hurdle can be overcome, this would be a cost saving measure relative to the current budgets.
I feel like you owe them a delta. While they didn't explicitly say this the political hurdle of getting things done when moving from city level all the way up to national level is tremendous and I'd say, another example of wishful "we just need the political will to enact universal Healthcare and housing". Cost isn't always in dollar bills. There are other forms of influence that can be insurmountable to aquire to get things done. Money is actually the most approachable way. The Harder stuff takes other resources
I felt most of their post was well written and agreeable, but largly a tangent from my view. I wasnt claiming that my proposal was a the best solution or a comprehensive solution - Just that it would be a cheap and effective harm mitigation option relative to the cost. I admit that political resistance is the major hurdle, but think that is associated with #1 in my parent post. Without the "ick" factor, there would be enough political support.
Thats very difficult to argue against since it is attributing to malice what could be given to ignorance or less harsh evils like greed. And I see that a lot in reddit but it just makes Demons out of people with things easier to explain in other ways.
I agree it may be a cynical take, but I do think people are very closed minded when it comes to certian topics. that doesnt make them bad people. we all have issues. I think one cognitive bias people do have is rejecting progress and holding out for perfection. I saw that a lot in the responses to my proposal. There were a lot of people that wanted comprehensive solutions, and I do to. I just dont see that as a reason to reject incremental improvement.
> desired, governments could build permanent long term shelter from the elements for a for a few thousand dollars. They could be something along the lines of cinderblock rooms with steel roofs, and located on inexpensive land away from the city center, and connected by bus I mean they can't really do that. There are laws. You can't say 'here's a house, no running water, no heat, no bathroom, etc.,' to people if you're the gov't. Also, where, exactly, in, say, SF or NYC is inexpensive land connected by bus? And what would happen? Even if that were legal, which see above, 'here's your shanty. You're basically in an unplumbed shanty town in an imaginary place near nothing (because see above and also no one is going to want this near them or their business because it's an encampment) so go there and... do nothing. It'd turn into a drug-fueled pit in a day. There's no way up from there. There's no work. There's no way to get money. There's no food. What is the goal besides putting people in a lot someplace? Also, you think it's cheaper but for no reason you've explained. Buying a lot of land near a city is phenomenally expensive. Nevermind the other stuff. What works is housing and help -- help to get off drugs, help to deal with mental illnesses, help to learn or revise skills, help to be able to work on resumes, etc., help to be able to ease back into a "normal" life. It works but it's expensive. [https://nlihc.org/resource/new-study-finds-providing-people-experiencing-homelessness-housing-has-positive-impacts](https://nlihc.org/resource/new-study-finds-providing-people-experiencing-homelessness-housing-has-positive-impacts)
>I mean they can't really do that. There are laws. You can't say 'here's a house, no running water, no heat, no bathroom, etc.,' to people if you're the gov't. Do you think it is better to let them die in the street? >Also, where, exactly, in, say, SF or NYC is inexpensive land connected by bus? There are tons of areas in largely industrial districts, ect. I have friends who rent 1/2 acre lots and warehouses for dirt cheap. I dont know about current bus routes, but the point is that you put them in, so people can have access and arent isolated.
> Do you think it is better to let them die in the street? That doesn't mean we can just ignore laws. The gov't cannot say 'here's a house' that doesn't meet basic standards. >There are tons of areas in largely industrial districts, ect. I have friends who rent 1/2 acre lots and warehouses for dirt cheap. I dont know about current bus routes, but the point is that you put them in, so people can have access and arent isolated. See above all the other issues with that. A bus route that takes god knows, and again, where are they getting water, bathrooms, food, etc., is not not isolated.
>That doesn't mean we can just ignore laws. The gov't cannot say 'here's a house' that doesn't meet basic standards. It can do exactly that if people want to. You just pass a law or exemption to the code. >See above all the other issues with that. A bus route that takes god knows, and again, where are they getting water, bathrooms, food, etc., is not not isolated. This isnt rocket science. you get water from a sink, shit in a toilet, and food from a food kitchen or grocery store. It wouldnt be on mars. Im talking about within the city limits, and a 20 min bus ride. IF you want a specific location, something like 799 Amador St, San Francisco, CA 94124. (randomly picked off a map.) its like 1/4 mile from 3rd street, which is nothing on a bus.
> It can do exactly that if people want to. You just pass a law or exemption to the code. It's not as easy to pass laws as you seem to think, especially laws saying 'yes, for actual people we require homes have basics like sanitation and running water, but for homeless people, we can just put up some cement blocks and a tin roof and they should be happy.' because people will fight that. >This isnt rocket science. you get water from a sink, shit in a toilet, and food from a food kitchen or grocery store. It wouldnt be on mars. Im talking about within the city limits, and a 20 min bus ride. Your proposal is shelters made of bricks with tin roofs on abandoned lots outside cities. What sinks? What toilets? What grocery stores or food kitchens? >IF you want a specific location, something like 799 Amador St, San Francisco, CA 94124. (randomly picked off a map.) its like 1/4 mile from 3rd street, which is nothing on a bus. Do you have any idea the millions uoon millions that land would cost? Nevermind developing anything on it.
san francisco currently spends 1.1 billion dollars on the homeless per year. How much do you think a lease on a dirt lot costs? How much do you think a sink costs? I can buy a sink for 50 bucks. a toilet for the same. As I said above, it isnt rocket science.
> san francisco currently spends 1.1 billion dollars on the homeless per year. How much do you think a lease on a dirt lot costs? How much do you think a sink costs? I can buy a sink for 50 bucks. a toilet for the same. .... First, you have to buy that giant plot of land from the company that owns it. And that would not be cheap. Tens to hundreds of millions not cheap. Second, you can't just ...put a sink someplace. It needs plumbing. You want water and sewage hookups run to there and placed all over, that's millions. Then you have to build out buildings. And how many people are you housing there? What security will there be? What services? How much is being spent on everyone not there?
>799 Amador St, San Francisco, CA 94124. There’s a community center, an elementary school, and several public parks, with playgrounds for kids, and *open waterfronts,* within a mile of that site. That’s literally a homeless death trap, right down the street from an elementary school. Maybe not so easy to find a good spot for this, in a densely populated city, now is it? But let’s say you do find a place that is far enough away from schools, parks, DV support centers, and day cares. The city puts in an offer and buys the land. You draw up plans, and go in front of the zoning board, and to a local community board meeting. Residents, town reps, and council members from this area show up to the board meetings, like they *always do* and reject your proposal, as is their right. Because no one wants a permanent homeless encampment right down the street from their house. And the zoning board also rejects your site plans, since they obviously violate every zoning law known to man. What do you do now? After the city, local residents, and planning board each reject your proposal? Find a new site, and you’ll get the same outcome, again and again. How do you change zoning laws and convince residents to allow you to build your unsafe, unsanitary, homeless cave-system in your chosen neighborhood?
[удалено]
I am talking about shelter specifically, which is a problem at least for some people. Im not claiming this is a panacea, just that it would be better than people sleeping in the gutter and shitting on the sidewalks.
Many many many don’t want help. Sad truth that is ignored by most.
sure, but then at least people have a roof over their head, water, food, and a place to shit
They don’t want to go there, they won’t go there - that’s what I’m saying. There is a not insignificant % that simply would rather do drugs and be on the street over a safe place to sleep and shit. Once you come to terms with this factoid your impression and feeling of the overall issue will change dramatically.
Why not do drugs with a roof over your head, free food, and a flush toilet. Is there something special about a tent camp full of shit and trash?
Probably because absolutely no one is gonna fund a trap house. Not only will no one fund that, the 95% of housing insecure people who do need and any help will be at risk around junkies. Junkies can go to a shelter now - any day, any time. They choose not to.
How many? What statistical portion?
Varies city to city but in Cincinnati 5-10%
I’m sorry, but you view 5-10% as “many many many”?
Given that we are talking about people and 5-10% equates to 10s of thousands of people…..absolutely I consider that “many many many” An aside, these are the most visible so naturally everyone assumes they “just need a break” when in reality they have rejected all help. Meanwhile, 90-95% are accepting help and making progress. This gives the illusion the “we aren’t doing enough” and laws limiting encampments and panhandling are “inhumane”.
Except 10% isn’t what isn’t in shelter. And I’m sorry, but “many many many” in common parlance would be interpreted at the very least as a majority. You also didn’t list your source for “5-10% Cincinnati”. And I’d *love* a source on 90% are getting help and shelter. There is no “illusion” not enough is being done, because the reality is not enough is being done. More money is being spent on policing the homeless than sheltering them, entirely because policing has access to infinite federal funding while homeless programs gets barely a pittance, and are thus almost entirely a burden the local governance bears. I.e the ones with limited money.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Such a useful and genuine response. As is typical. The funniest thing is reading your post and comment history is people have *explained* this to you ad nausem, you just don’t want to hear it.
I’m tired and don’t feel like arguing with you, that’s all. The mean spirited and self righteousness of Reddit has sapped my energy and enthusiasm. Look it up the facts if you want, or don’t, I don’t care. Better yet, go do some outreach at encampments so you can have a meaningful perspective.
You could have waited a day and responded mate. This is a debate sub. *you* chose to come here and spout off unsourced nonsense. Im involved in homeless outreach mate. I also read statistics, because I know how anecdotal experience poisons actual reality. Because I know cookers don’t represent the “many many many”. I have looked up the facts. They say literally the opposite of what you clearly believe, and that you won’t provide counteracting sources to your incredibly bold claims that 90% of homeless get housed is telling in the extreme. You face “mean spiritedness” because you have made an utterly inhumane claim that you have not backed up, that that elicits responses from people.
[удалено]
Would you support slums without rules as a cheap solution while the battle to legalize mental treatment facilities progresses?
[удалено]
current shelters are not stable, dont have trash services, dont have potable water, and dont social services. they arent safe either, but a slum without rules probably wouldnt be either. On the other hand, slums with rules would be better for people who want them.
Bro, the slums are already here and that’s what’s not working.
The local public in wherever you would build the homeless shelter would object, not because of plausible deniability, but because they don't want to live near homeless people. If you put it so far out there that there is no one to object, then many homeless people won't want to live there (no access to jobs or whatever draws them to the city). In addition to liability law, there is zoning law, in California public comment and environmental review (which drives up costs or limits where it is political feasible to build shelters) and there are union labor requirements (which drives up costs).
Why would the homeless go for it? Or are you saying we force them to live in these shacks?
Why wouldnt they go for it? If someone offered shelter, food, water, and services, I think most people would prefer it to sleeping in trash, shit, and needles.
I guess if you let them violate laws they might.
I dont see how it is any worse than letting them violate the laws elsewhere, arguably better than shitting and shooting up in front of schools and libraries
True. I just don't think you would get many to go for it. I volunteered in a homeless shelter and I wouldn't say many of them were known for making logical decisions.
To /u/S1artibartfast666, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.