at some point enough is enough and they gotta go.
i think it’s a juvenile attitude to look down your nose at the endless victims and tell them to just be more understanding of the hardships the homeless face.
Nope, none of this changes my feelings, and certainly does not grant me "depravity tokens" that I'm now allowed to cash-in. "Hello, I have five depravity-tokens from being treated badly by a homeless person, I'd like to spend it on treating them badly in return."
You don't have to hate homeless people to not want to be around them.
I walk by this library frequently (it's on 16th just east of Market) and I _have_ seen that there used to be a bunch of people there most nights, and this often isn't true anymore. But as someone who lives in the area, my "exposure to homelessness" has not in any way been reduced; I just pass tents in slightly different parts of the neighborhood.
"Go somewhere that rich people aren't" isn't much of a solution.
... in a town of 250 people, where nearly a third of the population lives below the poverty line.
The ONLY people that benefits is the residents of SF or wherever, that successfully managed to "make it someone else's problem".
It's not a city where you want to rediscover yourself in, unless you inherited property from a previous generation or you're one of the lucky few whose career is benefiting from the latest tech gold rush. You will not escape the homelessness cycle unless SF taxpayers guarantee you free housing until you get hired by Netflix.
In my mind? All you've done is create a powder keg.
Versus the love they're getting from the populace now?
Perfect is the enemy of the good. San Francisco is three quarters of the way towards spending its median income on its homeless [1][2][3]. That is how you generate a toxic backlash against a subgroup.
Has anyone asked the homeless in San Francisco if they'd want a free apartment in Willard? When rates were lower, we could have probably paid for their mortgage for less than it costs to temporarily house them. That is the opportunity cost.
[1] https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-franci... $70k/shelter bed/year
[2] https://smartasset.com/retirement/average-salary-in-san-fran... $96k/year median individual income
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MHICA06075A052NCEN $120k/year median household income
Right. So they're getting no love in either place. So why is this better?
> San Francisco is three quarters of the way towards spending its median income on its homeless
The median income in Willard is $26,000, so how far do we think that's going to go?
But like you say, there's no love in either place, so moving these people from San Francisco to Willard (I know, hypothetical) has very little to do with what's best for them, but instead "what's best for the residents of SF". Nothing much changes except SF residents don't see them and don't pay for them now.
Someone now loses their home after that - let's say to a fire and they didn't have it insured for that because the house insurance market is either dysfunctional or close to it in some parts of the US. You now have 1 homeless person again. Do you also ship them off again?
Do you just forever keep shipping off the unlucky and downtrodden people to some other place?
What if they lost their house, but have insurance paying soon, the insurance company is just dragging their feet for a few months. They will be fine, they will be able to pay for a new house or rebuilding. But until then they might be without housing. Ship them off anyways?
The goal is not to get rid of the homeless in the city, it’s to “get rid of them.” And -consciously or unconsciously- at its core, the goal is to have a group of weak people who are easy to oppress.
The rhetoric hasn’t basically changed in 90 years. It’s disgusting and frankly I’m shocked to see this sort of talk on HN.
Perhaps Reddit was running interference for us…
Brb changing my BSSID to “FBI Van #80085” as a practical step to protect my property
Just a bunch of conservatives and liberals chilling. No logic people.