[s0rce]

I agree with this. The fact is that to live in the bay area now is expensive and many people (myself included) work hard to afford to live here. I don't understand why someone who doesn't or can't work should be guaranteed a place here. If I was injured or became a drug addict/mentally ill and needed to stop working I would strongly consider moving back to where I lived for the past few years in Eastern WA, life was exponentially cheaper. Problem is these places where living is cheap probably have little to no services for the mentally ill/ addicts. This is why I agree with your statement that the state should establish services in more cost effective areas. I guess this seems like shipping them off to camps away from rich people but at least the dollars spent on services and shelters can serve more people more effectively.

[dpark]

> This is why I agree with your statement that the state should establish services in more cost effective areas.

How's that supposed to work? The state builds a homeless ghetto in Salinas and trucks all the homeless there with promises of housing and services? Who is this supposed to be attractive to? The residents of the town now housing the ghetto? The homeless who are being shipped somewhere that they don't want to be, somewhere that can't actually support a homeless population on the street? If the program fails either wholesale or for that individual, will they truck them back to SF or just dump them on the streets in this town with no support for homelessness?

[DominikR]

Oh you've got me completely wrong, I wouldn't guarantee anyone a place or service anywhere in the world.

What I'm saying is that people are free to go and stay where ever they want in their country as long as it isn't someones private property. That's a very basic freedom that we all have.

You don't have a mandatory responsibility to care for the homeless and homeless do not have a responsibility to accept any your care. Especially if your care amounts to basically forcing them to live in a different place.

[rm_-rf_slash]

When your property taxes (or your landlord's property taxes that you pay in rent) are used to pay for expensive public services that could be done much cheaper elsewhere, homelessness is most certainly an infringement of private property.

If a homeless person is robbed, your taxes pay for their police investigation. If a homeless person is stabbed, your taxes pay for their medical treatment.

As far as this "very basic freedom" for people to "go and stay where ever they want" goes - can you point out where this is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution?

[DominikR]

The costs for the examples you list are costs of having your own nation and your own set of laws.

There's no point in having either of those if we collectively do not enforce it.

Your position would allow to introduce arbitrary limits on freedom because you can always show a direct or indirect cost caused by having freedom. (it would certainly be cheaper to have everyone living in safe and orderly labour camps, wouldn't it?)

Regarding the U.S. Constitution: I'm in the EU but from my basic understanding the Constitution is a list of supreme laws limiting the governments power to interfere with citizens freedoms and not the other way around. Compiling a list of citizens freedoms would be senseless anyway as it would quickly approach an infinite list. Since I have not heard about a Constitutional law that allows the government to displace people internally it follows that the government does not have this power.

[angry_octet]

Your "private property" is not being infringed by a decision about how taxes are spent. You have taxation with representation, talk to your representative about how angry you are about being taxed so much when you see that money being spent on the homeless people you might trip over on the way to Whole Foods.