Hacker News Reader

It's not a silly reason to not do a no-payment system. It's unfortunate, perhaps, but it's pragmatic. Unless you could somehow organize a massive simultaneous restructure of the city's welfare system and its public transit system, you'll have to concede these problems.

View on HN

Indeed, many of the "homeless" may have access to shelter-- it is more of a vagrancy problem. Vagrancy is an issue with any free public service or public space, from parks to libraries to train stations to free buses. You'd have to enforce limits to time on the buses and rules against sleeping and eating and that sort of thing.

No, it's pretty silly. It's effectively saying that the proper way to respond to strain placed on services by the homeless is to reduce the services the homeless have access to.

Pragmatism can still be wrongheaded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com