Hacker News Reader

Comment by onos | Hacker News Reader

I don’t believe the problem can be solved, at least in full, but instead we have to pick our poison. We must either choose the current dystopian solution, or instead criminalize / institutionalize these people against their will.

One hurts the full population. Is the liberal solution honestly any better for the addicts?

View on HN

It absolutely can be solved. The problem is that SF's landowners have its politics by the balls, which means that policies which could solve homelessness and broader poverty/destitution overnight - like land value taxation with a citizens' dividend - have zero hope of seeing the light of day.

SF ain't the only one, either; this is a statewide, regionwide, and nationwide issue. Only reason it's more pronounced on the West Coast is because of the more temperate weather; rough sleepers end up surviving for another year instead of freezing to death in winter.

In what world are landowners not hurt the most by SF turning into cyberpunk bedlam?

The one where they can insulate themselves from said cyberpunk bedlam by fleeing to the 'burbs (or forcing the poors out instead via gentrification), building gated communities/complexes, hiring private security, receiving preferential treatment from law enforcement, etc. That worked for a century-ish, but it was never sustainable - and the landed class has a vested interest in doubling-down on that strategy instead of admitting that maybe - just maybe - private exclusive ownership of a natural resource with inelastic supply might be the primary driver of socioeconomic inequality (and with it, crime).

So you think the liberalism in sf is helping these people and we need more of it? Or do you think the liberalism in sf we have now is not the right variant?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com