|
|
|
|
|
|
by tdeck
1841 days ago
|
|
|
> are we not encouraging interpersonal violence by refusing to enforce the property laws that separate us from the state of nature? The tradeoff is that we definitely have to use violence to evict people from these spaces and force them back onto the streets or into other open spaces. And with fewer places to camp, they'll likely be exposed to more physical disputes than before. It's not as if the residents of these camps will go "well, time to buy a condo". They'll still need somewhere to live. > Basically, we can spend all the money in the world and build all the housing that people need, but the personal liberty that this country espouses -- personal liberty I agree with! -- means that no one is obligated to take it. The east bay has hundreds of people on a waiting list just for shelter space. There aren't enough beds for the night, let alone supportive housing, so we haven't even come close to trying the "build all the houses that these people need" (and make they available) strategy. EDIT: FWIW I learned about the waitlist problem while listening to this podcast: https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ |
|
|
That's because people come from all over the country, since the bay area is homeless friendly. The best solution is to make project room key permanent.
>EDIT: FWIW I learned about the waitlist problem while listening to this podcast: https://99percentinvisible.org/need/
I listened to that too, and in the final episode, you hear exactly what I'm talking about. In the interview with K.C., the narrator mentions that she had been in a shelter, but they didn't allow dogs and she didn't like the lack of privacy. Some people won't take the help you give them, and not preferring the solutions offered doesn't give you an absolute right to public land.