Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlgreco | Hacker News Reader

The reason homeless people sleep on buses instead of in hotels is that hotels cost money, while buses are cheap. There are far fewer homeless people clogging the buses now that they cost money again.

You can wax on about how what we really need to solve is homelessness itself, but I am not hearing any solutions to that. We need solutions, not platitudes. Dissolving the free-zone was a solution.

View on HN

> We need solutions, not platitudes. Dissolving the free-zone was a solution.

Dissolving the free-zone was a solution to the problem of having to deal with homeless people, not the problem of homelessness itself. I agree we need solutions and not platitudes, but we also have to be cognizant of how our "solutions" merely decrease the salience of pervasive ills rather than attempting to tackle them head-on.

Homelessness is a problem for the homeless. Homeless people sleeping on the buses are a problem for commuters. Sometimes you're just looking to get to work without having to put on a show of saving the world.

> Sometimes you're just looking to get to work without having to put on a show of saving the world.

Agreed. You do not need to be in "Save the World!" mode at all times.

> Homelessness is a problem for the homeless. Homeless people sleeping on the buses are a problem for commuters.

Disagreed. Homelessness is a problem for everyone. While homeless people exist, they will necessarily cause problems for the rest of the society. Here are my takes on it:

1. Homelessness is a spot in society. If you take all the non-homeless people in your community and move to a brand new piece of land that is completely isolated from the rest of the world, new homeless people will appear. This is because being homeless is inherent to certain societal setups and the percentage of homeless population can be determined "at compile time" via static analysis of the rules and initial state of the society.

2. The homeless/poor/hungry are a problem for everyone and everyone pays the cost. It is rarely direct (e.g.: not everyone gets mugged), but often indirect. For example, your car or renter's or homeowner's insurance is higher. You have to pay for a security guard in your apartment building. You have to pay for your bus ticket. You have to buy a more expensive bike chain.

3. Given #1 and #2, it is in everyone's best interest to solve the problems of homelessness/poverty/hunger.

I am not saying that we should drop everything and not stop until it is solved. I am saying that it should be a pretty high priority and that the question of whether we tackle it should be "yes".

Homelessness is a problem for the homeless.

That is a matter of opinion. Other people think it is a problem of society.

Can't we kick the homeless off the buses?

It isn't the job of transit to tackle homelessness itself. Their priority is transit... because they are transit. Their job is to provide clean, safe, effective transportation, not rolling makeshift homeless shelters.

That being said, transit doesn't operate in a vacuum. Problems like homelessness aren't going to be addressed by only one sector, because every sector can say "it's not my problem".

Its not the job of government to handle transit alone.

It isn't the job of government to handle transit alone.

It was a solution to what? You encountering people that offend you by their very existence? It's not a solution to anything, just a way of making a problem more invisible. One could argue the reverse actually, that the more visible and pervasive and nuisance-causing homeless people are, the more likely it is that actual solutions will be offered (housing first policies, wrap-around social services, etc) (Indeed, this has been explored as a hypothesis: http://www.bridgewaypartners.com/Portals/0/Documents/leverag... )

> "It was a solution to what?"

I'm going with what @scarmig says:

"confined space with a homeless person who is likely unhygienic, drugged up, or (non-exclusive) mentally unstable." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5907142

Countless times I have seen homeless people harass commuters (particularly women), straight up threaten people, "soil" the bus seats, leave unsanitary waste and debris on buses, and occupy more space than a single person requires. Resolving situations typically involves the bus driver pulling over and waiting for a police officer to arrive, though typically situations go unresolved. This is not merely a matter of aesthetics; pervasive abuse of transit systems by homeless people interferes with a transit departments ability to do their job (which is providing safe, clean, and effective transportation to people with places to go).

By all means, dedicate all the effort that you want to solving homelessness. Just don't use transit as your tool, it is preoccupied trying to be transit.

Getting threatened with physical violence by a mentally ill homeless person on the LA Metro (and having the subway operator literally tell me to shut up and get off the intercom when I reported it) is the reason I don't take the subway anymore.

It was a solution to the problem that people couldn't get where they needed to go because downtown buses was always full of homeless people, who needed somewhere warm to get out of the weather, but didn't actually need to go anywhere. Metro's job is to operate a transportation system, not to operate a homeless shelter, and the fact that homeless people were riding back and forth across the downtown ride free zone made it much more difficult for Metro to do its actual job.

It may reassure you to know that a local social services group now operates a free "Downtown Circulator" bus which runs in a loop around the area of the old ride free zone. Any homeless or impoverished people who actually need to travel around the downtown area for free can still do so.

Easy fix. Leave some busses standing around for homeless people to inhabit. Way cheaper because they don't need gas and maintenance beyond cleaning.

That would basically just be a relocatable homeless shelter. Homeless people apparently don't like homeless shelters because even they don't like being around lots of other homeless people.

Do you have any support for that claim? My experience in Chicago and Baltimore is that homeless shelters are packed. People do the daily 4:30 line-up to get a bunk, and those who don't get in find a place in the alley to try again tomorrow. None of them seem particularly bothered by the smell of their neighbors, they're more interested in the smell of soup.

Anecdata: I am homeless. I will not go to a shelter. I have a compromised immune system. I am on the street to get well. I have goals. Etc. I do my best to avoid most other homeless people. They are typically unclean, unhealthy, have super poor boundaries and think I should want a hug merely because I am also homeless...etc..ad nauseum.

I run a small website where I am trying to put together ideas on how the homeless can solve their own problems. I am not looking for a handout. I think one of my biggest problems is the Othering of the label I have. But I had that problem long before I had this particular label. Anyway, I think on that a lot and learning to "behave normally" after a lifetime of never managing that looks to me like one of the big things I most need.

Edit: The homeless website whereof I speak: http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/

Thank you for replying. Godspeed.

Periodically in my local paper there are articles where the reporter is scratching his head trying to figure out why there are people on the streets when we have open beds in the shelters.

The people on the streets say they'd rather be there than in the shelter. Some of it is because the shelters don't let you bring in weapons and don't allow people in who are under the influence. But some of these guys are homeless because they're an extreme case of a person who doesn't like to be told what to do.

No, only what I have heard claimed, which is mainly that homeless shelters are seen as an absolute last resort because they are typically less safe than the streets.

edit: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-ch...

Sounds like a reason to improve the homeless shelters.

It is, of course. Buses up on cinder-blocks is not the way to do it.

Agreed.

There is no one on the streets. here in Amsterdam. There are plenty of free shelters (the whole red light district is basically only red light windows and shelters) and it works

Are the homeless living in shelters in Amsterdam actually fixing their issues and getting back into the workforce and becoming prosperous though?

Whereas those on Seattle buses were?

No, but the success rate in homelessness rehabilitation isn't relative to any other places success rate, it is in terms of itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com