[airnomad]

Why do we expect that people should live in house or have a home?

Maybe we need to design our cities and public places in a way that they would be approachable for people living outside?

Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?

[romwell]

>Why do we expect that people should live in house or have a home?

Because we aren't cavemen anymore.

And a tent is a home, just a shabby, crappy, small one.

>Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?

Because people also need to eat and poop and shower somewhere, and be protected from the elements, and once you incorporate all that, you get a hostel/shelter.

I'll take your comment as an opportunity to say this:

Yes, we absolutely should have more infrastructure for the homeless.

Let's have public baths, public toilets, storage facilities, communal kitchens perhaps. Internet access (libraries do that, but that shouldn't be the only place).

Travelers would appreciate many of these as well.

[airnomad]

Have you ever camped in a camping spot somewhere? You get electricity, bathrooms, access to kitchen etc.

If we could accept the fact that some people want to live on the streets, we would be able to make their life much easier and better without imposing a certain philosophy on how they should be living.

[kelnos]

Civilization is exactly about imposing a philosophy on how people should live. Like it or not, that's how it works. If you don't want to play ball, there are plenty of open spaces in the US where people can live off the land without creating a public health hazard.

If people don't want to be homeless, we should do everything in our power to help them get into housing, sustainably. But if they do? No thanks, do that somewhere else, where the land can be reasonably and cost-effectively set up to support that. One of the most expensive, highly-regulated real estate markets in the US is not that place.

[airnomad]

Philosophy on how people should live is not a set in stone.

It's a moving target and it should be moving in a direction of achieving the best outcome for everyone, regardless if they're investment bankers or heroin addicts.

People thinking like you have been trying to stop progress since we got down from the trees. It's this ridiculous idea that how things are now is something that has to be kept and preserved.

It is a disservice to humanity - those ideas never survive history test, just cause better future for everyone to come later than it could.

[ltbarcly3]

> People thinking like you have been trying to stop progress since we got down from the trees. It's this ridiculous idea that how things are now is something that has to be kept and preserved.

Wait, aren't you the one arguing people should move back up into the trees? Well, not even the trees, you are just arguing they should live on the ground, and even our primitive primate ancestors weren't stupid enough to want to do that.

[airnomad]

I'm arguing that everyone should be living as close to how they want as possible

[awayyyythrow]

Yeah, most people actually love to be homeless and live in tents. The housing crisis isn't real.

[m0nsoon]

So it is society to blame for one’s decision to not be employed, be addicted to intoxicants, and behave feral? The grandiose entitlement certainly is real.

[awayyyythrow]

Yeah, how dare people want to sleep in a bed under a roof. So entitled.

[dsfyu404ed]

>Have you ever camped in a camping spot somewhere? You get electricity, bathrooms, access to kitchen etc.

There are many people for which the definition of camping specifically excludes those things.

[CompanionCuuube]

But how am I going to plug in all this stuff I got from Skymall?

[bantunes]

This is some Olympics-level mental gymnastics. Have you considered most of these people don't _want_ to be sleeping outside and only do so because circumstances drove them to? Like maybe going bankrupt from healthcare, or some other reason?

[coldtea]

>Why do we expect that people should live in house or have a home?

Because we're not animals, and have lived in at least caves since 10.000 years or more...

Also because it's 2019, and there's no excuse.

Maybe you could try some living in "camping spots in cities" in winter, for example?

[awayyyythrow]

Why should we expect people to have affordable healthcare? Why should we expect people to have enough to eat? Why should we expect people to have rights? Can't we just let people die outside from the cold or something?

[coldtea]

Yeah, why not kill them outright? Humanely of course! Problem solved! Out of sight (in a ditch), out of mind!

/adding to the parent sarcasm

[pjc50]

People do not want to live on the streets in tents. Tents are just not suitable for permanent life even at the latitude of San Francisco.

The UK and Ireland have the "traveller" community. They are basically non-Roma gypsies, the descendants of nomadic Irish tinkers. Even they do not live in tents. They live in caravans. A few still have the traditional wooden painted horse-drawn ones, although generally those only appear for special occasions like funerals. Mostly it's modern caravans and motorhomes.

There used to be fields provided for them on the edge of towns, but the inevitable social conflicts have caused those to be reduced to almost no provision.

[maxlybbert]

Roughly every news article I’ve read about homelessness includes an interview with somebody who doesn’t like the rules at a local shelter and is, in some way, voluntarily on the street. I know the intention is to suggest that “build more shelters” won’t help everyone, but since it shows up in every single article, I think it gives people a very distorted view of things.

[kelnos]

Setting up camping-like facilities to serve the entire homeless population would likely turn every park in the city into an always-populated campsite. Pretty sure that's not what we want.

[airnomad]

who are "we" that don't want that? The homeless population would definitely want that.

[highhedgehog]

I don't see how this would change anything. Isn't what you are proposing essentially what the shelters are, essentially without the roof?

[airnomad]

Take children playgrounds for example - you have them where you have a lot of families with kids, right? And that makes sense since that is kind of public infrastructure supporting the needs of a certain population.

However, homeless people are not considered as population, they're considered as aberration. If we consider them as just another population we need to support with public services, maybe every neighborhood would have facilities for homeless population, like you have facilities for pets owners, parents, as you have parks, bike trails, etc.

[highhedgehog]

Kids playgrounds are nice because they are not a health risk to anyone.

Shelters are there. And in shelters they get all they need. How is this different from a campground? The only difference you are talking about is that in campings they would have a tent instead of a roof, unless I am missing something. Homeless people don't want to go in. They don't want to give up drugs. How do you think that providing a "camping" playground would solve the problems?

[airnomad]

You don't get it. Why would they need to quit drugs or go somewhere? If we want that, we're capable to put them by force where ever we want. We're also able to put them on drug rehab by force if we want to.

But the point is something else. If it turns out homeless people are assembling under the bridge, redo the bridge to be liveable or create something nearby that would attract them to go and live there. If they're throwing trash around, put people there to collect trash or create an environment where it would be easier to dispose trash in a safe way. Money is beint spent to assimilate homeless people and it's obviously not working.

Don't tell me that a country who put a man on Moon can't deliver sanitary service to millions citizens so they have to shit on the streets?