Live data from Hacker News

The Disappearance of the Public Bench

placesjournal.org

51–60 of 261 posts

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#51
post #9

I also like clean safe unobstructed sidewalks and parks but along with benches, we've made a decision. We've decided that putting the mentally ill in a facility and arresting people for public drug use is not something we're comfortable with at the expense of those other things. I don't personally ageee with this decision but it is apparently the consensus.

Them staying in the sidewalk is free. Or the cost is so indirect that nobody is responsible for it. Facilities like asylums and jails are super costly though. And extra expensive to operate if you don't want to treat the inmates as cattle.

> Them staying in the sidewalk is free.

Disagree. When the tax-paying public doesn't feel safe around the people living on the sidewalk, they move and take their tax money with them. That means less money for services, roads, education... everything taxes pay for.

That's the cost.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#52

I also like clean safe unobstructed sidewalks and parks but along with benches, we've made a decision. We've decided that putting the mentally ill in a facility and arresting people for public drug use is not something we're comfortable with at the expense of those other things. I don't personally ageee with this decision but it is apparently the consensus.

What's wrong with both? Why can't we have public benches, and also not arrest drug users if they are sitting on the benches and smoking?

Because sitting on benches quickly turns into living on benches. Then the drug dealers move in, because there's a ready customer base of drug users.

Then the productive members of society move out.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a $10 billion "fix everything easily" button you have in mind for homelessness?

$10 billion would build a lot of homes. If you give homeless people homes, they're not homeless anymore. The problem is also political, unfortunately. $10 billion isn't going to change zoning laws and a NIMBY attitude of freezing things in time. If they like that point in time so much, they should build a museum, sheesh!

> $10 billion would build a lot of homes. If you give homeless people homes, they're not homeless anymore.

But that doesn't answer the question. It's "a lot" of homes, but less than a tenth of what would be needed.

And you need a bunch of social workers too at minimum.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a $10 billion "fix everything easily" button you have in mind for homelessness?

You know oddly enough, if you just put someone up in a real place to live for like a year, that's enough for the majority of people to get back on their feet.

[flagged]

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I don't think that arresting people for the crime of not having money is a good idea. We also cannot seem to fund any actual drug programs, because US citizens hate the idea of anyone getting something for free.

SF spends ~$100k per homeless person.

Yes but critically none of this money is actually given to the homeless person. So we aren't giving them anything for free we are just dealing with the consequences of them not having a proper support system. Spending money to do that is okay, because it doesn't really directly benefit the homeless person.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#56
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF spends ~$100k per homeless person.

Yes but critically none of this money is actually given to the homeless person. So we aren't giving them anything for free we are just dealing with the consequences of them not having a proper support system. Spending money to do that is okay, because it doesn't really directly benefit the homeless person.

Also the essence of ‘San Francisco has a lot of homeless’ isn’t really a logical argument against those policies since homeless will often migrate to where the functional support services are. San Francisco may well be doing amazing things with getting people back on their feet at a relatively lower cost than prison.

You need to go many levels deeper on statistics to understand if it’s working or not.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#57

I also like clean safe unobstructed sidewalks and parks but along with benches, we've made a decision. We've decided that putting the mentally ill in a facility and arresting people for public drug use is not something we're comfortable with at the expense of those other things. I don't personally ageee with this decision but it is apparently the consensus.

but it is apparently the consensus.

Not everywhere, fortunately.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#58
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you've had a drug addict in your life at any point, and if not that is a blessing. Drug addiction is a dark place and it's very common that the availability of free support programs is entirely rejected by the user, and the only hope at a normal life requires forceful intervention by family and friends. The only way to solve drugs on the street is to look at the cities that have solved them and copy w…

You seem to be equating "homeless" with "drug addict". The article talks about taking away public benches because of homelessness. There are different programs needed for drug addiction than for homelessness. Not everyone who's homeless has a drug problem, and not everyone with a drug problem is homeless.

We didn't eliminate benches in public spaces because we wanted to reduce the presence of the nice, respectful, and polite homeless. We eliminated benches to reduce the presence of the problematic homeless, which has a much higher rate of drug abuse and mental illness.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#59
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want authoritative source, here's UCLA study from the blessed pre-COVID era: https://capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Health-Co ... Which specifically leads with a page saying: > Hundreds of studies - including our own - show economic pressures are the primary drivers of homelessness, that housing people ends homelessness, and that targeted financial assistance helps people at risk of homelessness…

[flagged]

> Care to read it past the preface?

I already read the entire thing. You may stop accusing me of bad faith or insufficient research at any time.

> Page 5, Figure 4.

Thank you for confirming that you cited a chart listing 75% of unsheltered people and called it "close to 100%". I gave exact numbers from the studies I referenced; you exaggerated yours.

A more relevant figure from the study is figure 2: 51% of unsheltered people (and 6% of sheltered) say that substance abuse is a cause of their homelessness. Also see figure 3 for other relevant causes.

That's leaving aside, again, that you are still equivocating between drugs and alcohol. I would suggest looking at statistics for how many people in the general population drink to excess, if you're going to cite statistics on how many homeless people do. But, of course, "drug addict" is the more evocative and stigmatizing phrase, which makes it harder to get people help.

And in any case: yes, of course there's a difference between sheltered and unsheltered, not least of which because we do a poor job of helping people who simultaneously experience drug addiction and homelessness. There's an obvious correlation there, but a major part of it is "drug addiction prevents getting help from shelters". (And I would venture a guess that homelessness makes it harder to get help with drug addiction, though I haven't specifically looked up numbers on that one.)

There are many attempted claims in this thread that people "don't want help", and none of that is supported. How many people refuse help, versus how many people can't get the help they need based on the structure of what we provide?

On top of that, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48057738 for a more nuanced point about lagging indicators: the right interventions happen much earlier in that downward spiral.

That is nowhere near the same as a claim that homelessness, in general, is a problem of drug addiction, or that the Venn diagram is a circle. That claim is actively harmful towards efforts to build systems that actually help people.

> You failed to do a basic search to verify your claims. Instead, you clutched at the first number that popped out in Google Search.

False. Stop assuming that people who come to different conclusions than you have have not done thorough research.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#60

I also like clean safe unobstructed sidewalks and parks but along with benches, we've made a decision. We've decided that putting the mentally ill in a facility and arresting people for public drug use is not something we're comfortable with at the expense of those other things. I don't personally ageee with this decision but it is apparently the consensus.

Yes, I don't think that arresting people for the crime of not having money is a good idea. We also cannot seem to fund any actual drug programs, because US citizens hate the idea of anyone getting something for free.

> arresting people for the crime of not having money

Such people are not arrested for not having money, but instead for being a pox upon the public by virtue of their behavior.

Post reply on HN