Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 401 posts

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#341

Post by 0x8BADF00D »

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #299
markdown wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they should, shouldn't they. Nobody should be able to monopolize and ruin the commons, whether or not they have a home. The problem isn't the criminalizing of sleeping in public spaces, it's the lack of publicly funded shelters and publicly funded (incl. mental) healthcare for the homeless. We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public…

You'll change your mind as soon as you don't have a place to stay. Getting arrested because you were involuntarily evicted for your home is bullshit and tried to sleep somewhere is bullshit.

Couldn’t you use your car? 24 hour fitness for showers? I see many people do that. They don’t bother anybody. They’re actually trying to work very hard, it’s just the property values are so costly, that they end up homeless in their car.

The homeless that are on the street are typically very hostile and going through drug withdrawal. It can become a public safety issue then.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#342

Post by mcv »

awb wrote: post #302
werber wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this, I’ve been homeless and slept on the bus or subway to stay warm (and safe) and not once did someone try to help me. And now I’m years out of being in that situation and I am part of the same problem, I almost never take public transportation and use Lyft or my car to get around.

> I’ve been homeless and slept on the bus or subway to stay warm (and safe) and not once did someone try to help me. Curious how someone could have most helped you at that time in your life if you don't mind sharing.

I think the city should just provide enough shelters for the homeless. That seems cheaper than running public transport that's not getting used the way it's intended.

It's hard to fix every cause of homelessness, but providing shelters is pretty easy.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#343

Post by dhuramas »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #341
PopeDotNinja wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll change your mind as soon as you don't have a place to stay. Getting arrested because you were involuntarily evicted for your home is bullshit and tried to sleep somewhere is bullshit.

Couldn’t you use your car? 24 hour fitness for showers? I see many people do that. They don’t bother anybody. They’re actually trying to work very hard, it’s just the property values are so costly, that they end up homeless in their car. The homeless that are on the street are typically very hostile and going through drug withdrawal. It can become a public safety issue then.

Sleeping in the car is also illegal in a growing number of places[1]

[1]: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/10-facts-homelessness-2014

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#344

Post by [deleted] »

ssivark wrote: post #321
markdown wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they should, shouldn't they. Nobody should be able to monopolize and ruin the commons, whether or not they have a home. The problem isn't the criminalizing of sleeping in public spaces, it's the lack of publicly funded shelters and publicly funded (incl. mental) healthcare for the homeless. We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public…

> We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public spaces. A little empathy would clarify that if there were any (holistically) better option, then homeless people would be preferring that to sleeping on the streets. Firstly there needs to be "enough" available shelter, which accommodates the richly varied life situations of people. Secondly,…

[deleted]

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#345

Post by GhettoMaestro »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #310
deeg wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the answer is not obviously yes. A long time ago I volunteered in a shelter. High (and drink) guests can be more violent and argumentive; fights will break out over people stealing drugs. They pass out and make messes with bodily fluids that have to be cleaned up. They leave dirty needles laying around. Few people, including other guests, want to deal with these and the safety issues and so fewer come (…

If folks can steal other people's stuff, it is not a good shelter. It doesn't matter if it is drugs or any other personal belonging. If folks can steal drugs, they can steal money as well. Build better shelters. But more than that: You can require certain things, like not being violent with other folks. That they clean up their own messes. Provide mental and physical health care at the shelter and offer medical help…

I am going to take a guess that you have never volunteered at a homeless shelter. You’re approaching this shit likes it’s solvable like some math equation. It’s not. Humans are fucking difficult. And addicts are barely human, behavior wise.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#346

Post by GhettoMaestro »

NeedASource wrote: post #226
gamblor956 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, most people who are "pro-homeless" or talk about treating them with respect don't actually live near or otherwise interact with the homeless on a regular or even occasional basis, which lets them feel superior and cast moral judgments on those of us who do live near the homeless and try to do something to contain the problem.

Going to need a source on that. In my experience it is only people who are exposed to homelessness in some way that have any feeling on the matter what so ever.

No. This isn’t reddit. Take your meme replies and fuck off.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#347

Post by Broken_Hippo »

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #345
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If folks can steal other people's stuff, it is not a good shelter. It doesn't matter if it is drugs or any other personal belonging. If folks can steal drugs, they can steal money as well. Build better shelters. But more than that: You can require certain things, like not being violent with other folks. That they clean up their own messes. Provide mental and physical health care at the shelter and offer medical help…

I am going to take a guess that you have never volunteered at a homeless shelter. You’re approaching this shit likes it’s solvable like some math equation. It’s not. Humans are fucking difficult. And addicts are barely human, behavior wise.

Humans are fucking difficult. It doesn't mean you cannot help folks and provide mental and physical health services. You'll probably get better because you have trained people that have dealt with addicts before instead of the average homeless shelter employee/volunteer that has little to no education to back them up - merely a will to help others.

And no, it won't be perfect. It rarely is. But it is a much better start than the shitholes we call homeless shelters now. Stop treating folks like animals, even if you look down on their lives.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#348

Post by GhettoMaestro »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #330
nostromo wrote: post #23

Seattle used to have this for an area of the city. It was called the "Free Ride Zone" - and it had some unexpected consequences. The primary problem is that homeless people would get on the bus because it's warm, and would fall asleep. The busses became rolling homeless shelters. This caused other people to take the bus less, because of public safety concerns, as well as simple quality-of-life issues like unpleasant…

That's not actually true. The ride free zone ended because King County has a ton of suburban communities who resent their delusion that they support Seattle through taxes. When the county wanted to pass new car tabs, some of the suburban reps refused to approve it unless the ride free zone was scrapped in return. Luckily for them, they were able to take advantage of the existing biases of people like you to spin thei…

Ah there it is - the guy that gets pissed when he can’t spend other people’s money on pet projects.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#349

Post by GhettoMaestro »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #337
ALittleLight wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it's easier to appreciate from afar. Personally, I found it quite distasteful and frustrating to live in a dirty and dangerous city. The city's permissive attitudes are a major reason I left.

No, it's pretty easy to appreciate as a resident of the city. I do, and so do a ton of other people who still live here.

Tell me that after some shitbird takes a dump on your sidewalk.

God I hate retards like you. It’s the real reason SF and Seattle are going to burn.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#350

Post by lazyasciiart »

fiblye wrote: post #340
lazyasciiart wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people believe in things that don't exist.

Plenty of people also deny problems that do exist. I’ve encountered people pissing on buses. Shitting isn’t something I’d doubt happens, especially in places like Seattle and San Francisco.

I ride busses around Seattle a lot and have never seen or heard of it happening. I'd be willing to entertain the possibility, but I don't believe it without evidence, and someone saying they are scared of it happening doesn't count as evidence.
Post reply on HN