[klyrs]

If I put a gun to your head and told you where to live, would you feel that I was giving, or taking away, your personal liberty? Which of these two things should our government be responsible for? My Constitution says the former.

Without threat of violence, housing projects such as the Harlem River Houses have been immensely successful. Other than the US and Canada, do any other first world countries have homelessness problems of the magnitude we're seeing? Why does the US lead the world in homeless and prison populations; if stricter laws were the answer, shouldn't that have worked by now?

[drblastoff]

If the city says “You cannot live on the sidewalk, in public parks, or in Bart stations,” that’s a far cry from putting a gun to someone’s head.

The city can offer other options:

- shelters in the city

- shelters outside the city if shelter in the city are full (this is my controversial opinion, but if you can’t afford housing in a specific place, you may need to live in a different place until you can afford it. I’d love to live in Malibu, but I can’t afford it. I don’t think it’s my right to plop myself down on the sidewalk and shoot heroin until the city of Malibu builds me free housing. That’s not a realistic expectation.)

- bus fare return to family

- treatment for addicts

[dmitrygr]

It might, if laws were enforced. Most everyone I know left Norcal precisely because enforcement is nonexistent. Try calling the police in SF/Oakland. Hell, just google what it is actually like if you try: https://abc7news.com/post/oakland-76-gas-station-burglary-ro...

People who claim that "laws do not work" are usually ignoring that laws need ENFORCEMENT.

[JumpCrisscross]

> If I put a gun to your head and told you where to live, would you feel that I was giving, or taking away, your personal liberty?

Context: I’m in your living room and refuse to leave.

[klyrs]

Private property.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Private property

Valid. This is a tragedy of the commons. The problem is they’re being used for the private benefit of those camping on them. That will eventually undermine support for funding them.

[klyrs]

Yes, that's why you spend money on housing; for pennies on the police state dollar. Granting a person a room is a one-time cost, which can be diminished with larger builds, and a modest upkeep. The criminal justice system incurs significant ongoing costs per incarceree. Moreover, a criminal record is a barrier to employment, which tends to entrench people within the criminal justice system -- these costs can avoidably result in a lifetime of wasted taxpayer dollars.

[pandaman]

Getting a person a room is, indeed, cheaper than running the whole criminal justice system if there had been such a person, giving a room to whom would stop all the homeless crime I'd be first to pay for their room my own personal money. What you meant, I believe, was running a free housing program for everyone, not a room for one person, right? And then the one-time cost is not one-time anymore, as people will be constantly demanding free housing, and modest upkeep is not so modest especially with larger build. And you still need to run the criminal justice system.

I am shooting in the dark here, but are you even aware of the various free housing programs that the US already had tried in the past[1]? Those did not solve the issues and the proponents blame them being too cheap on the failure.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...

[klyrs]

I grew up a block away from housing projects in Seattle, where many of my friends lived growing up. They were recently demolished, the majority of their residents sent packing (hello, homeless population!) and the developers who were granted the land sold most of the houses at market rate. Yeah, I'm familiar with what's been tried.

When a halfassed attempt fails, do not conclude that a full and honest effort would also fail.

[AlbertCory]

You didn't answer the question.

Unless the Harlem River House is your answer. So if that were available, THEN you'd be OK with compulsion?

[klyrs]

No, I am not okay with compulsion... you're asking me at which point has the government given enough gifts to justify authoritarianism. And I'm telling you, I don't accept your authoritarianism, and there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.

[dmitrygr]

> there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.

pray tell

[klyrs]

I said so upthread, Harlem River House is the model. Government building out large and livable housing.

[Cupertino95014]

Did you also say that compulsion is OK, if Harlem River House-level housing is available?

A little research shows this to be a New Deal project that doesn't seem particularly replicable or sustainable:

https://www.courthousenews.com/harlem-public-housing-tenants...

https://pix11.com/news/3-big-problems-plague-harlem-river-ho...

[klyrs]

Holy shit, for the third time in a row, no, I am not okay with authoritarianism. I said that with sufficient housing, it should not be necessary. No. No compulsion.

[UIUC_06]

OK, I think we have it, finally: you think people are entitled to live on the street. Good to know.

"There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.

[klyrs]

> "There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.

Or, humility. Nothing is certain in civic planning. But I suspect you'd jump on me if I claimed it was a foolproof plan, wouldn't you? But it's observed all over the world: in places where housing is affordable and available, there isn't a homelessness crisis. Most homeless people don't wanna be. Remove them, and the community goes away, and with it, all but a very few diehards that exist in practically every city.

[Cupertino95014]

Really? Name some of your ideal cities. We'll check and see what their policies are for sleeping on the streets.

So if they do force people to move on, despite this "affordable and available" housing, that pretty well destroys your argument, doesn't it? Because all compulsion is bad, as you said.