Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pxtl | Hacker News Reader

Having seen Toronto spiraling into the same mayhem of random vagrant street violence in the same moment when rents exploded, I'm firmly with the housing advocates on this:

People think mental health causes homelessness, but it looks increasingly like it's the other way around -- cities with bad housing crises and insufficient shelter systems (NYC is notable for having an excellent shelter system compared to its peers) end up with people who hit rock bottom and become destructive out on the street when they'd be trying to get their lives together if they had a place to live.

If people can't grapple with their demons in the privacy of their own homes, they will grapple with them on the subway and we'll all be collateral damage.

View on HN

Toronto's justice system has also become much more lenient to criminals in the last 8 years or so.

I think the problem is when people are incapable of grappling with their demons even in the privacy of their own homes. If given a place to stay, many people _choose_ to use it for non-productive things. Surely, exploding housing prices make things worse, but it's also easy enough to see why productive members of society want to distance themselves from this destructive behavior. After all, even the excellent shelter that you claim for NYC doesn't really seem to have resulted in paradise.

If you're talking about initiatives to house the homeless, I don't think it's just about "being given a place to stay". People who have gotten to the point where they lose their place in the first place are already traumatized, and likely to lose any sense of security from having another place.

Add to that, housing designed for recently-homeless people is not conducive to improving oneself, and the other resources they need in conjunction with that are often absent, or scarce.

No, but NYC has far, far better street-crime situation than SF.

Understood. I'm not arguing against providing housing for the homeless (although I'm also not sure I'd argue for it). My point is more that (as with everything else) one can look at "strongly rising rents" as either a cause or an effect. The left-wing point-of-view is that it's a cause, which then leads to homelessness and the problems associated with it. On the other hand, right-wing folks might be more inclined to think of it as an effect of some other problem (e.g., a populace in which an increasing percentage of people is unproductive). Both points-of-view strike me as having merit.

> but it's also easy enough to see why productive members of society want to distance themselves from this destructive behavior.

Classic game theory: "fuck you, got mine". When everyone in a society just looks out for themselves instead of for their fellow citizens as well, you get precisely what happens in SF - although there are external factors making the issue worse, such as Republiqan mayors busing out the homeless to Democrat/progressive areas or harassing and demonizing them until they leave on their own.

I think that’s a plausible theory and good analysis. I also think another factor is crime goes where the supply is.

Agree with this 100%. If you agree, in theory, that there will always be an element of crime, why wouldn't criminals go to where they'd have it the easiest?

I think you're overestimating the mobility and scope of worldview of the average criminal.

I agree, criminals are dumb. But to say they're not mobile is false: vagrants are mobile.

Scope of worldview? I don't know. I'm not sure but I don't think it matters, because it's like a market effect: they don't need to understand the dynamic to be subject to the dynamic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com