Live data from Hacker News

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

citylab.com

371–380 of 401 posts

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

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approximately 65% of Americans own their home.

I’m not sure what point you’re making, if any. Care to elaborate?

If the up-thread reference to American real-estate investment implied Americans use real-estate ownership as a retirement nest-egg, the numbers do not bear out that hypothesis---or at least, do not show it's a solution much of America avails itself of.

... and that's ignoring that shocks like the mortgage crisis can happen, which indicates that home ownership isn't as stable a store of value as, say, the US dollar.

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

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you give everyone houses, it relieves pressure from the housing system which causes rents to go down. Therefore, every landlord opposes actually solving homelessness. Since we have government by the rich and landed, we get their position encoded in policy. The degree to which reality diverges from this prescription is the degree to which the politicians fear either a) a declining bushiness environment or b) riots

>If you give everyone houses, it relieves pressure from the housing system which causes rents to go down. Care to explain your logic around this statement?

If you provide a real, quality outlet to all people facing homelessness, then people fear eviction much less. Therefore, they will readily turn to the public option in times of crisis rather than scrabble to pay rent. This lack of fear of the the landlord results in less negotiating power.

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

#373
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The middle class makes up most of the tax payer population. You can't tax income at the top and expect much unless you added 20%.

The top 1% in the US has absorbed nearly the entire economic growth for the last 30 years or so. The number of people doesn’t really matter. It’s the percentage of wealth that they hold that matters. Other segments of the population have seen absolutely no economic growth.

The top 1% isn't getting income via employment payroll.

They own entities globally and can afford to give themselves a dollar a year salary. If you are only raising employment income taxes you have to get it from the middle class.

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

#374

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…

> "The busses became rolling homeless shelters"

That makes me wonder if that would be a viable way to handle homelessness. Build mobile homeless shelters with beds and toilets. Have them stop at places with services for homeless persons like showers and laundry. I wonder if it would cost more than just paying for a rented apartment or hotel room?

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

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is sometimes hard to understand why public transport is treated so differently in US. It is worth remembering that the US is much larger than all of Europe, is considerably less dense, and much of it was not well-developed until after automobiles were in wide use. Public transit doesn't make logistical sense in much of the country. It does make sense in some places, of course, but it's less of a part of the nati…

That argument falls apart when you look at countries like Australia, China, Brazil - plenty of open space but cities have public transport because the nation culture isn't dead against it.

I feel like none of the replies to my comment read my second sentence.

Yes, there are many cities in the US with enough density to support public transit. Most of them have it.

My point is that public transit is not a large part of American culture and history which significantly depresses demand for it.

Most Americans grew up in families that owned a car or two and used them to get everywhere. When you ask an American how to get groceries, their immediate mental image is getting in a car, taking a long drive to a big store, and filling up the car with a week or two's worth of stuff. Tell them they can't own a car and all of a sudden they don't know how to solve mundane problems like this anymore. There are other perfectly fine solutions, of course, but they don't know those solutions yet. It's not part of their culture.

Also, most Americans live or at least grew up in cities whose urban planning was designed around automobiles and parking lots. They are spread out to make room for parking lots, which in turn makes public transit slower and less economical. People need cars because cities are too spread out for transit because people prefer to drive because they have cars because cities are too spread out...

There is a huge path dependent effect here where most cities aren't laid out for public transit and most people don't prioritize it.

People from outside of the US love to criticize how stupid Americans are for not having great buses and rail everywhere, but few want to acknowledge that no country is free of its own history and culture. Cars are a big part of ours. We are making progress, but the physical topology of cities and the culture loaded into the heads of several hundred million people cannot be refactored as easily as code.

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

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I was saying, what's stopping us from forcing the politicians to provide better options? Is there some way we can organize a discussion about practical solutions to this issue, and then pick that and tell the politicians to go do it? I'm not saying our current solutions are good by the way, which seems to be what some people replying are interpreting my comment as. I'm personally in favor of just state funded smal…

Yeah, housing first is absolutely the way to go. Sadly the very thing causing homelessness also makes housing-first much more difficult: astronomically-expensive real estate. Condos in Seattle cost more than $500/sqft, and investing tons of money to construct these buildings further props up the ridiculous valuations. Socialized housing is absolutely the answer, but homelessness will never be solved until we stop tre…

How can socialized housing be the answer? Government has proven repeatedly that it cannot build housing as efficiently as private companies. Government housing projects also very quickly turn into slums since there are insufficient employment opportunities nearby.

The single best thing governments could do is increase density in areas with high economic opportunity. This can also be done very easily with a few strokes of the pen: Higher density zoning, and a land value tax.

Land value tax is critical as it ensures that landowners must develop their land rather than simply rent-seek if they are lucky enough to own in a desirable and growing area.

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

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you give everyone houses, it relieves pressure from the housing system which causes rents to go down. Care to explain your logic around this statement?

If you provide a real, quality outlet to all people facing homelessness, then people fear eviction much less. Therefore, they will readily turn to the public option in times of crisis rather than scrabble to pay rent. This lack of fear of the the landlord results in less negotiating power.

Not sure I fully understand though do appreciate the communication.

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

#378
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen shit on a bus. What's the likelihood that you'll see shit on a bus? I've on many occasions seen shit in public restrooms. What's the rational thing to do about shit on public restrooms? Is seeing shit on a bus worse than seeing shit in a public restroom? I guess we're used to seeing shit in restrooms, so it doesn't carry the same stigma. Maybe if there was more shit lying around in general it would he…

The person I replied to mentioned it as something existing. And shit in a restroom is an unpleasant thing to see, but it’s a facility set aside for the explicit purpose of shitting. The explicit purpose of a bus includes transport without shitting. I find it hard to imagine that you can’t conceive of the idea of people being exposed to shit and the types of people who have no issues shitting while on a bus. They’re n…

[deleted]

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

#379

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…

In Orlando there is a free Bus system downtown only on certain routes. They don't seem to have the homeless problem on the bus. But I suspect that may be because homeless generally don't need to seek warmth.

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

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my "obvious" solution is that you let people use, and provide methods for them to use safely (needle exchanges, etc.), and offer them support to quit using. By stopping people at the first step, you make it a lot harder to provide the second (safe use) and third (use reduction). Nitpick: I don't like to use the term "homeless people", because it puts homeless first and the emphasis on them as a fixed group of…

> They're just people who at this time have housing insecurity They're homeless, trying to hide that reality with a non-sense PC euphemism doesn't change that. This attitude isn't helping, it's obfuscating and bad. They're not housing insecure, short people aren't height-challenged, disabled people aren't differently-abled.

Homelessness is an immutable characteristic they can't change? Sounds like you're reinforcing why the change in framing is helpful and emphasizing their personhood first, their living conditions second.
Post reply on HN