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

211–220 of 261 posts

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#211

Post by scoofy »

squibonpig wrote: post #209
scoofy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think need trumps all duty to your fellow citizen. I do not. By suggesting need trumps everything, you are demonstrating why the benches have disappeared. If we live in a would where we accept that we allow some folks to disrupt complicated social programs, then those aspects of the social programs will disappear or the programs themselves will disappear. This is exactly what the essay describes as happen…

Glad you can enjoy homeless people's "duty" not to lay on a bench. Do you have a duty to give them food? I'm sure you're able to justify why you don't have a categorical imperative to help them.

I do think we have a duty to help them.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#212

Post by amanaplanacanal »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #51
artyom wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That sounds correct in theory, but is it true? Are tax revenue down? Are vacancy rates up?

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#213

Post by squibonpig »

scoofy wrote: post #211
squibonpig wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you can enjoy homeless people's "duty" not to lay on a bench. Do you have a duty to give them food? I'm sure you're able to justify why you don't have a categorical imperative to help them.

I do think we have a duty to help them.

When we neglect our duty why would we expect them not to neglect theirs?

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#214

Post by amanaplanacanal »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #152
triceratops wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [why are] productive members of society and drug dealers incapable of existing near to each other? Drug dealers are criminals. Criminals commit other crimes and attract other criminals and crime. For example, rival drug dealers who want to take their spot and use violence.

Seems like something decriminalizing drugs would solve then.

This only solves one problem (you don't get thrown in jail for using drugs), but there are other problems. Drug dealers and gangs still exist. The drug user doesn't know what he is actually buying. Overdoses are easy to do since you don't actually know what you bought.

The way to solve these issues is legalization and regulation.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#215

Post by amanaplanacanal »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #196
techteach00 wrote: post #8

Yup. Public trash cans too.

You can tell which countries have and haven't experienced urban bombing terrorism by the style of public refuse receptacles. Before: concrete, rock, metal, and wood; after: minimal material hoops supporting transparent bags. Also, public drinking fountains I think are better signals of community commonwealth infrastructure than benches because they take more planning, infrastructure, investment, and maintenance to de…

And public restrooms. Oh, people shit on the sidewalk in your city? Huh, I wonder why that is.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#216

Post by breakyerself »

TheBlight wrote: post #3

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.

There are other options that are more effective than either of the things you mentioned, but people's feelings get in the way.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#217

Post by techteach00 »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #196
techteach00 wrote: post #8

Yup. Public trash cans too.

You can tell which countries have and haven't experienced urban bombing terrorism by the style of public refuse receptacles. Before: concrete, rock, metal, and wood; after: minimal material hoops supporting transparent bags. Also, public drinking fountains I think are better signals of community commonwealth infrastructure than benches because they take more planning, infrastructure, investment, and maintenance to de…

Ya but where I'm from in New Jersey we never had public bombings and the trash cans still vanished

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#218

Post by breakyerself »

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…

West Virginia has much lower rates of homelessness and public drug use compared to liberal states despite having higher rates of drug addiction. Because housing is much more affordable.

Homelessness rates increase and decrease in direct proportion to the cost of housing as a proportion of median income. When housing costs increase more and more people become homeless and the ones that end up on the street tends to be those already living at the margins so you see more drug addicts and mentally ill people on the street and assume it's the cause.

Its well understood that being homeless makes it much harder to provide treatment and services. Sweeps of encampments make it even harder as their belongings tend to be thrown out.

So we have places with lots of services, but extremely expensive housing or places with affordable housing, but no poor public services.

Imagine if people could have housing and services how much better it would be. Maybe we wouldn't even have to strip people of their freedoms to make improvements. Wouldn't that be preferable? Isn't it worth trying?

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#219

Post by graemep »

jmyeet wrote: post #155
nradov wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're spreading a common misconception. No one really "owns" a home in China. What they're usually purchasing is a 70-year lease on the land. The hope is that the lease can be renewed on favorable terms but there's no guarantee.

This is misleading, arguably false. All land in China is state-owned. You own the building. You don't own the land the building is on. In this way, it's really no different to leasehold in the UK or land-lease in NYC. Do we say that all these UK leaseholders don't really "own" a house? Is there the same fearmongering? And in the UK, it's often the Royal Family or some aristocratic landholder who owns the land (eg the…

Its not a great system which is why the UK has introduced right for leaseholders to buy freeholds. https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/...

Leasehold is rare for houses, common for flats.

Re: The Disappearance of the Public Bench

#220

Post by scoofy »

squibonpig wrote: post #213
scoofy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think we have a duty to help them.

When we neglect our duty why would we expect them not to neglect theirs?

People neglect their duty all the time. That doesn't make it okay, and it doesn't mean we should find it acceptable.

Again, this is about creating a better society for everyone. If we operate a transportation system that is inefficient because many of the patrons do not want to use it because of quality of life issue, then all those gains from transportation efficiencies lost... they are lost and replaced with expenses instead.

This isn't a zero-sum game. When efficiencies are lost and instead become costs everyone becomes worse off, including the person sleeping on the bench. Efficiencies compound upon themselves. High-trust societies make people better of in almost every interaction, including folks who need assistance.

Post reply on HN