Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF • Hacker News Board

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#61

Post by robbrown451 » Sat, Jan 04, 2014, 10:21 PM UTC

losf wrote: post #59

robbrown451 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If every city in the Bay would do the same, there would less incentive for homeless to congregate in SF. So then any such program shouldn't be city specific. Why would residents of a city do things that result in more homeless in their own city? Basic game theory.

It is not a game. The goal is not put homeless under the carpet. Because they are out of sight does not mean that the problem is solved. SF is "the homeless capital of the United States"( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Stat... ). So, SF must be doing something right, for homeless to come in the City. I wish other cities would do the same, for the homeless's wellbeing not necessarily to attrac…

Game Theory is not about games. Please don't blame me if the name is confusing to you. It is about strategies and incentives.

My point is that from many SF residents' perspectives, spending their tax dollars to make the city the "homeless capital of the united states" is not a smart strategy.

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#62

Post by robbrown451 » Sat, Jan 04, 2014, 10:26 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #26

I recall a time at a community meeting I advocated finding a way of providing a facility that could house and treat the addicted and mentally ill, I was accused of wanting to "sweep the homeless under the rug and forget about them." I knew it was a difficult problem I just didn't realize that the problem wasn't the homeless, the problem has roots in our collective understanding of what is a 'better' versus 'not bette…

You make interesting points.

I do, however, think that it is the right of the governed to make rules against sleeping on benches, that they paid for with their tax dollars. Same goes for sidewalks, doorways, etc. I suppose you could say such rules are "restricting of movements" (in the broadest sense), but they seem reasonable restrictions to me.

That said, I also think it is society's responsibility to provide another option.

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#63

Post by losf » Sat, Jan 04, 2014, 10:34 PM UTC

losf wrote: post #59

robbrown451 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If every city in the Bay would do the same, there would less incentive for homeless to congregate in SF. So then any such program shouldn't be city specific. Why would residents of a city do things that result in more homeless in their own city? Basic game theory.

It is not a game. The goal is not put homeless under the carpet. Because they are out of sight does not mean that the problem is solved. SF is "the homeless capital of the United States"( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Stat... ). So, SF must be doing something right, for homeless to come in the City. I wish other cities would do the same, for the homeless's wellbeing not necessarily to attrac…

"My point is that from many SF residents' perspectives, spending their tax dollars to make the city the "homeless capital of the united states" is not a smart strategy."

I guess this is where we disagree. As a SF resident, I want my tax dollars to serve every residents including the homeless. I don't want my tax dollars to be used to push the "problem" out.

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#64

Post by omgtehblackbloc » Sun, Jan 05, 2014, 3:23 AM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #56

nickthemagicman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making it 'easy' for the homeless? Lol you think basic fundamental survival goods like food and blankets are making it easy? Are you SERIOUS? Because I completely agree! You guys are absolutely right on. If you encourage homelessness EVERYONE will become one.

"Easy" is a relative term. The issue is whether you want to make it easier than it previously was.

You are implying that homelessness is a calculated choice, and that if it becomes unpleasant enough, an individual will decide to stop being homeless.

This is absurd because it fails to recognize that homelessness is not a choice, it is the default when no choice is available. It is literally the bottom of the list, lower even than jail (many homeless people try to get in jail on purpose, especially during the winter).

Making life more difficult (and dangerous) for homeless people won't stop them from being homeless. It might, however, get them to go be homeless in someone else's town - which is the real motivation for inhumane policies. Make human suffering someone else's problem, not in my back yard.

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#65

Post by rhizome » Sun, Jan 05, 2014, 4:00 AM UTC

habosa wrote: post #31

In many discussions like this I see the argument that some/most/all homeless people are drug addicts or mentally ill or otherwise not deserving of help. I have always been of the opinion that I don't care why someone is homeless, I would like to help them. There is nobody that deserves to live on the street in a nation with as much wealth as America, even if they've made bad decisions (drugs, alcohol, crime, etc.). I…

There is nobody that deserves to live on the street in a nation with as much wealth as America, even if they've made bad decisions (drugs, alcohol, crime, etc.).

I'm not sure what you mean by, "even if," here. The Fundamental Attribution Error holds that it's a mistake to attribute someone's circumstances more to choices than to luck. There are tons of rich people who have chosen drugs, alcohol and crime, with extremely few, if any, turning up homeless as a result. There are also homeless who are not addicted nor incapacitatingly mentally ill (I'm sure we can agree that homelessness could predictably lead to depression at the very least).

Likewise, the way economic policy in many capitalist countries is oriented toward maintaining certain levels of unemployment (full employment being seen as bad, weakening the negotiating power of business owners, etc.) ensures that homelessness and poverty are actual government policy. Your Tax Dollars At Work.

Generally and socially, I contend that the problems of education and homelessness, in the US at least, are directly attributable to prioritizing commerce and the military over domestic care. Let's ask why a country with as much wealth as America deserves to engage in war, shall we?

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#66

Post by rhizome » Sun, Jan 05, 2014, 4:05 AM UTC

nickthemagicman wrote: post #46

joshdotsmith wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also wish I could downvote you into oblivion. You're mischaracterizing others to an extreme, and in such poor taste.

I'm mischaracterizing ignorance? Mischaracterizing dehumanization of entire swathes of people with a simplistic black and white view of the world. It could be literally Hitler posting these comments. There's no taste too low for people like that no matter what side of the aisle you're on.

By now, it's extremely difficult to figure out what your perspective is, much less any points you may be trying to make.

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#67

Post by ChuckMcM » Sun, Jan 05, 2014, 4:49 AM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #62

ChuckMcM wrote: post #26

I recall a time at a community meeting I advocated finding a way of providing a facility that could house and treat the addicted and mentally ill, I was accused of wanting to "sweep the homeless under the rug and forget about them." I knew it was a difficult problem I just didn't realize that the problem wasn't the homeless, the problem has roots in our collective understanding of what is a 'better' versus 'not bette…

You make interesting points. I do, however, think that it is the right of the governed to make rules against sleeping on benches, that they paid for with their tax dollars. Same goes for sidewalks, doorways, etc. I suppose you could say such rules are "restricting of movements" (in the broadest sense), but they seem reasonable restrictions to me. That said, I also think it is society's responsibility to provide anoth…

That is a well understood argument for the common good. Which is that the vast majority of the citizens are served by available benches, not by occupied benches, (or other publicly supplied services) and so excluding people from sleeping on them makes sense in the context of the entire constituency.

   > That said, I also think it is society's responsibility
   > to provide another option.

I don't think many would disagree, the challenge comes with deciding what exactly is that option? I am an engineer so I find I tend to come up with practical but socially inept solutions.

At the time there was a discussion about how "we" (where we is the city of Sunnyvale) might use the Onizuka Air Force base facility (aka the 'Blue Cube') which was being decommissioned and turned over to the public sector for re-use. I was trying to figure out if there was a way we could convert part of that facility into what would essentially be caves, self heated concrete structures that were impervious to fire, contained internal pipes with a heat transfer fluid to maintain a livable temperature (cooling or warming), a dedicated latrine system that would periodically flush out all waste, and that were nominally "open" but could be enclosed with available materials. Something that people who were otherwise unwilling to live in a more traditional shelter/section 8 housing, might be able to survive in. This wasn't even a basic income kind of problem, these were people who are mentally non-functional adults. Was there any sort of place we could create that would make their lives better than it was today. They are an at risk group for whom it is very difficult these days to provide services for.

It was wildly derided as putting these people on a 'reservation' or 'in pens' or any number of things. Like I said earlier, socially inept. I don't know have any good solutions.

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#68

Post by habosa » Sun, Jan 05, 2014, 5:36 AM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #65

habosa wrote: post #31

In many discussions like this I see the argument that some/most/all homeless people are drug addicts or mentally ill or otherwise not deserving of help. I have always been of the opinion that I don't care why someone is homeless, I would like to help them. There is nobody that deserves to live on the street in a nation with as much wealth as America, even if they've made bad decisions (drugs, alcohol, crime, etc.). I…

There is nobody that deserves to live on the street in a nation with as much wealth as America, even if they've made bad decisions (drugs, alcohol, crime, etc.). I'm not sure what you mean by, "even if," here. The Fundamental Attribution Error holds that it's a mistake to attribute someone's circumstances more to choices than to luck. There are tons of rich people who have chosen drugs, alcohol and crime, with extrem…

I agree with you on most points. The "even if" was a reference to what others give as reasons for not helping the homeless.

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#69

Post by kohanz » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 8:19 PM UTC

yid wrote: post #12

nickthemagicman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of amazing how you can stereotype huge amounts of people in two sentences. And it's ALL THEIR FAULT. Not the economy, not the insane cost of higher education to gain job skills, not the outsourcing and automation of modern society. It's the homeless who are failures. That's why I propose Gladiator hobo fights to the death. Only the strongest hobo's survive. Make them earn their cheeseburgers like a good cap…

Oh get off that pedestal. OP was talking about the Tenderloin. Have you ever walked through the Tenderloin? A large fraction of the homeless people there clearly have severe psychological or drug issues. They're not there because of the economy.

For some those issues (mental health, substance abuse) are the causes of their homelessness (e.g. financial struggles), but for others, they are a symptom. Reduce the amount of people falling through the cracks, reduce mental health and substance abuse issues.

Re: Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF

#70

Post by rprospero » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 10:20 PM UTC

serf wrote: post #21

yid wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be the only one in this thread calling them losers. I'm not sure where you're getting that from my comment.

what don't you get? He's making fun of the assumption you seem to make that none of the residents of the area are there due to economic reasons, and then you cite anecdotal evidence (a walk through) as evidence as such.

I wrote an incredibly angry reply to you, but I've calmed down enough that I can try to explain my point without attacking you.

mrharrison stated that the root cause of much of our poor handling of homelessness comes from our poor handling of the disabled. To avoid going with anecdotes, I'll simply point out that 13% of the homeless population are veterans. Physical and mental disabilities are quite common and our society has decided to just dump these people on the streets as opposed to helping them.

However, then nickthemagicman comes along and makes the implication that stating that a homeless person is disabled is equivalent to stating that the person deserves to be homeless. That's the most offensive thing that I've ever seen on the Internet, and I've been to 4chan. Just because a person has a disability doesn't mean that they don't deserve basic human dignity.

Though I am descending into anecdote here, my wife was homeless when I met her. She also has a physical disability which cost her her job and her home. There was a wonderful government program to help her out of poverty by letting her haul 40lb bags of sand around, but it's not much use to a woman who walks with a cane and can't carry more than 20lb without needing a week of bed rest. If we were willing to talk about the root cause, then she'd be getting the treatment she needs to be healthy again and be happy to carry those 40lb bags. Unfortunately, the system was designed by bigots like nickthemagicman. When she applied for disability, she was told that they would only pay for her medical treatment if she agreed to never work again under punishment of jail time. After all, basic dignities like the joy of contributing to society aren't allowed for the disabled. Just the able bodied homeless, I guess.