Seems to me like lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box.
Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?
Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?
Yes, and people voluntarily placed themselves under indentured servitude before it was made illegal.
If there's a housing shortage, the solution isn't to remove bare minimum housing standards for everyone.
It may be something a marginally housed person could afford, though. Maybe that makes room in their budget for healthier food, addiction counseling or after-school tutoring. Or maybe they're already strained and would otherwise be on the street.
I'd rather have a government that enforces a high quality of life.
By and large, I'm a fan of American-style freedom-to-succeed-or-fail, but in the context of NIMBY anti-density housing supply crunches, it feels exceptionally cruel.
'We're going to have policies that limit supply and increase the cost of housing' + 'We're going to prevent you from finding other housing by making it illegal' is a heavy one-two punch.