All you people trashing shelters as they exist:
is there ANY definition of "housing" under which you'd be willing to compel homeless people to take it, under penalty of fines & jail? Please tell us.
is there ANY definition of "housing" under which you'd be willing to compel homeless people to take it, under penalty of fines & jail? Please tell us.
Without threat of violence, housing projects such as the Harlem River Houses have been immensely successful. Other than the US and Canada, do any other first world countries have homelessness problems of the magnitude we're seeing? Why does the US lead the world in homeless and prison populations; if stricter laws were the answer, shouldn't that have worked by now?
The city can offer other options:
- shelters in the city
- shelters outside the city if shelter in the city are full (this is my controversial opinion, but if you can’t afford housing in a specific place, you may need to live in a different place until you can afford it. I’d love to live in Malibu, but I can’t afford it. I don’t think it’s my right to plop myself down on the sidewalk and shoot heroin until the city of Malibu builds me free housing. That’s not a realistic expectation.)
- bus fare return to family
- treatment for addicts
People who claim that "laws do not work" are usually ignoring that laws need ENFORCEMENT.
Context: I’m in your living room and refuse to leave.
Valid. This is a tragedy of the commons. The problem is they’re being used for the private benefit of those camping on them. That will eventually undermine support for funding them.
I am shooting in the dark here, but are you even aware of the various free housing programs that the US already had tried in the past[1]? Those did not solve the issues and the proponents blame them being too cheap on the failure.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...
When a halfassed attempt fails, do not conclude that a full and honest effort would also fail.
Maybe look at WHY government-built housing is always so lousy. Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.
Thank you, this is a crucial aspect of Harlem that make it such a shining example in my mind. It was undertaken in a period when human dignity was given more weight. And while the apartments themselves seem stark to modern tastes, they were built about a century ago and in their time, contributed to a cultural renaissance.
A big problem is penny-pinching. You can sacrifice a ton of quality and end up only saving a few points on a total build cost, and paying way more in lifetime maintenance and replacement cost. Modern conservativism is penny wise, pound foolish, and that mindset is ever-present.
> Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.
Right on. But I didn't say that and I don't see anybody else saying that here.
Unless the Harlem River House is your answer. So if that were available, THEN you'd be OK with compulsion?
pray tell
A little research shows this to be a New Deal project that doesn't seem particularly replicable or sustainable:
https://www.courthousenews.com/harlem-public-housing-tenants...
https://pix11.com/news/3-big-problems-plague-harlem-river-ho...
there's that juvenile sentiment again. And there "shouldn't" be any burglaries, car thefts, armed robbery, or murder, either. Nevertheless, they've always existed and always will. And compulsion will always be a part of the civilized state.
"There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.
Or, humility. Nothing is certain in civic planning. But I suspect you'd jump on me if I claimed it was a foolproof plan, wouldn't you? But it's observed all over the world: in places where housing is affordable and available, there isn't a homelessness crisis. Most homeless people don't wanna be. Remove them, and the community goes away, and with it, all but a very few diehards that exist in practically every city.
So if they do force people to move on, despite this "affordable and available" housing, that pretty well destroys your argument, doesn't it? Because all compulsion is bad, as you said.
I believe most people would be satisfied if the problem were to simply become rare enough that they didn’t have to think about it.
If that’s the goal, I think improving housing quality can get you close.