[lghh]

Seems to me like lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box.

Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?

[raydev]

> lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box.

Yes, and people voluntarily placed themselves under indentured servitude before it was made illegal.

If there's a housing shortage, the solution isn't to remove bare minimum housing standards for everyone.

[entropicdrifter]

Because that's how you get the haves taking even greater advantage of the have-nots, to the point of injury, illness, and death in the name of slightly greater profits.

[lghh]

How? By letting them sleep inside? I don't understand.

[bluefirebrand]

By lowering acceptable living standards, the haves, aka the landlords, would be able to cheaply produce bottom of the barrel, barely acceptable living spaces and then since there is a housing crisis they could charge a premium for the have nots, aka the renters, in order to live in those shitty, barely acceptable homes.

[stavros]

Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing

It may be something a marginally housed person could afford, though. Maybe that makes room in their budget for healthier food, addiction counseling or after-school tutoring. Or maybe they're already strained and would otherwise be on the street.

[jcadam]

An open floor plan office has plenty of space for rows of bunks. Better than sleeping outside.

[silicon2401]

> Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?

I'd rather have a government that enforces a high quality of life.

[ethbr0]

As would we all, but we have to be cognizant that enforcing a high quality of life also means ignoring people who can't afford the raised minimum.

By and large, I'm a fan of American-style freedom-to-succeed-or-fail, but in the context of NIMBY anti-density housing supply crunches, it feels exceptionally cruel.

'We're going to have policies that limit supply and increase the cost of housing' + 'We're going to prevent you from finding other housing by making it illegal' is a heavy one-two punch.

[lghh]

Sure, but if the choice is this in the immediate term vs "a government that enforces a high quality of life" in the maybe-but-not-for-certain long term, I'd much rather take steps in that direction instead of waiting for some mythical perfect situation to present itself.

[trcarney]

Or maybe it's government involvement that has caused the whole issue in the first place and more government involvement would lead to an even bigger problem.