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

The Disappearance of the Public Bench

placesjournal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 261 posts

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#111

Post by SoftTalker »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #42
strictnein wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't create this "false dichotomy", nor did I say that those were the only two options. I'm just observing the fact that the current system that the major cities in the US seem to be employing is to treat homeless as a valid choice, even if much/most of it is a result of addiction and mental illness. The end result of that treating it that way is the death and suffering of people who actually need lots of help an…

I don't believe it's a deliberate decision by (most) policymakers. I think it's a structural failure across several axes, including failure to make enough housing for it to be affordable, and attacks on every front by people who treat all social programs and public assistance as evil. Most places have one or the other problem, if not both.

A drug-addicted/mentally ill chronically unsheltered person is not going to be able to afford a home at any price. If they could hold down any kind of regular job and sustain an income they would find someplace to live.

Also most "affordable" housing initiatives attack it by mandating "affordable" for new construction instead of just letting developers build what they can make the most money building. No developer wants to build "affordable" homes if they can build and sell high-end homes. So by imposing "affordability" mandates, they just encourage developers to go elsewhere.

New high-end homes make the older homes more affordable. New "affordable" homes simply don't get built, at least not in anywhere near the numbers that are needed.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#112

Post by cameldrv »

Loughla wrote: post #38
zdragnar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These programs exist, but they are underutilized to a significant degree. From a partner who used to work in one, people: - didn't trust the program and wouldn't sign up - didn't actually want to quit using so they avoided it - wanted to get the benefits from the program without changing anything (i.e. showed up to get free food etc) - tried but didn't like it and went back to using Very few people actually went all…

The answer to that question in a society that allows (mostly) autonomy of choice is that we let them die on the street. I'm not convinced that involuntary incarceration will actually fix the problem. I believe it will just take it off of the streets and out of the public consciousness.

I have a very good friend who was an addict, and I tried to help him turn his life around in many ways, but I couldn’t figure out a way. Professionals told me “he has to hit rock bottom.”

Anyhow he wound up getting arrested and spent a couple of weeks in jail where he got clean and decided to turn his life around. He went on to get a couple of masters degrees, get married, have two kids, and has a good job. He credits his time in jail for saving his life.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#113

Post by convolvatron »

zdragnar wrote: post #17
JoshTriplett wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a strange false dichotomy. Either we do absolutely nothing to help people, or we involuntarily incarcerate them? The actually progressive option is to provide meaningful public support programs , and also make housing affordable (by building enough housing). The US mostly doesn't do either of those, but it should.

These programs exist, but they are underutilized to a significant degree. From a partner who used to work in one, people: - didn't trust the program and wouldn't sign up - didn't actually want to quit using so they avoided it - wanted to get the benefits from the program without changing anything (i.e. showed up to get free food etc) - tried but didn't like it and went back to using Very few people actually went all…

maybe the problem here is the gate that requires them to quit cold turkey before offering them any help? I know it offends people morally to 'subsidize drug use', but that's a really high barrier for an opioid or crank addict to meet. the other issues are that people complain that its very prison like, in terms of the volume and severity of rules. the other really unfortunate thing is that some fraction of the homeless population is _really nasty_. so no one really wants to get locked up with these people.

but to say that the majority of them don't want any help is just wrong.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#114

Post by JoshTriplett »

SoftTalker wrote: post #111
JoshTriplett wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it's a deliberate decision by (most) policymakers. I think it's a structural failure across several axes, including failure to make enough housing for it to be affordable, and attacks on every front by people who treat all social programs and public assistance as evil. Most places have one or the other problem, if not both.

A drug-addicted/mentally ill chronically unsheltered person is not going to be able to afford a home at any price. If they could hold down any kind of regular job and sustain an income they would find someplace to live. Also most "affordable" housing initiatives attack it by mandating "affordable" for new construction instead of just letting developers build what they can make the most money building. No developer wa…

To your first point: people don't typically start out that way, things spiral down. And it's much harder to get out of that spiral if homes are completely unaffordable. It also doesn't help that the most temperate places (where you won't die of exposure if unsheltered) are also the least affordable places (because they're prosperous and haven't built nearly enough housing).

> Also most "affordable" housing initiatives attack it by mandating "affordable" for new construction instead of just letting developers build what they can make the most money building. No developer wants to build "affordable" homes if they can build and sell high-end homes. So by imposing "affordability" mandates, they just encourage developers to go elsewhere.

> New high-end homes make the older homes more affordable. New "affordable" homes simply don't get built, at least not in anywhere near the numbers that are needed.

Complete agreement that the current approach is not working, yes. The right approach is to build, and keep building, until everything is affordable. And the political challenge is the existing cohort of people who think a house should be an asset that appreciates rather than a necessity of life that everyone should be able to afford. People who are put in a particularly bad position by that (e.g. difficulty moving or retiring because housing prices went down) may need help.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#115

Post by giraffe_lady »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #56
lotu wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> since homeless will often migrate to where the functional support services are.

I've heard this a lot but I don't have any reason to believe it's true. Never seen a reputable study that asserts it. I've known a lot of homeless people but none that relocated for this reason. Most who moved were looking for work or trying to get closer to family. Most didn't move at all and were just where they had always been, or in the city they were living in when they became homeless.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#116

Post by bpodgursky »

lotu wrote: post #55
socalgal2 wrote: post #30

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.

Sorry this is very wrong. SF has so many homeless people because they come to SF to get free things.

Most of that is not direct cash transfers but they absolutely receive more in services than in other places, that is why they attract homeless from all over the country.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#117

Post by nradov »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #56
lotu wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Drug tourists migrate to San Francisco because they can get free money to buy drugs.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#118

Post by nradov »

svpk wrote: post #10

I'd add that we also chose policies that made housing expensive. It used to be much cheaper to live in NYC for example, but housing options included what was essentially a dorm room with shared facilities. Those were outlawedes for various reasons. There are also a lot of other policy factors that push up housing prices. Cheap housing isn't a panacea, but if there was sub $500 dollar rent in NYC you'd see a lot less…

Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing was effectively outlawed by tenant protection laws. The only way that housing with shared facilities can possibly work is when the landlord enforces strict rules and immediately evicts tenants who misbehave by making a mess, hassling other tenants, or not paying their rent. But in many cities it can literally take years to evict a tenant, and the city will even pay for legal aid for the tenant to fight it in court. This reduces rental housing availability and increases prices for everyone.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#119

Post by scoofy »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #98
scoofy wrote: post #24

[flagged]

>Anti-social behavior can be trivially defined by a kind of categorical imperative. That is: does this behavior, if universalized, render the public service non-functional. It is increasingly naive to consider these concerns simply in a cultural context or some power dynamic. Your own policy is anti-social then. If we universalized your suggested policy of having strict(er?) prevention and/or (probably and) enforceme…

Do we need a war on drugs? I don’t think so. We just need a war on people making services unpleasant.

Asking someone to leave a subway platform because they are not using the public transportation system for transportation is not a war on drugs. It’s just making people exit a subway station.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#120

Post by OutOfHere »

Having no public restrooms within a 15 minute walk is worse than having no public benches. Cities shouldn't be allowed to exist without either of them. Also, ground-level restaurants and supermarkets should not be allowed to reject non-customers from using them.

Bulk urine is a good source of urea/ammonia which has commercial value, especially considering the global fertilizer shortage.

Post reply on HN