this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1267 points (98.0% liked)
Solarpunk Urbanism
1729 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.
- Henri Lefebvre, The Right to the City — In brief, the right to the city is the right to the production of a city. The labor of a worker is the source of most of the value of a commodity that is expropriated by the owner. The worker, therefore, has a right to benefit from that value denied to them. In the same way, the urban citizen produces and reproduces the city through their own daily actions. However, the the city is expropriated from the urbanite by the rich and the state. The right to the city is therefore the right to appropriate the city by and for those who make and remake it.
Checkout these related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What? Why? Who gives a shit if you have 2x homeless instead of 1x homeless? Are you afraid to spend too much money? By calculations in this post we'd still be in the plus. Sounds like a bs excuse. Find another one.
Who cares? The tax payers will.
It doesn’t compute if half the country is sending the other half their homeless.
He’s right it takes everyone working together not half the country refusing to do anything but send people away and the other half having to find the funding.
Lol. Let me break it down for you since you apparently missed your math and logic classes. This article says that it costs 10k to house a hobo vs 30k to criminalize one. Blue and red states are about evenly split, so on average let's assume they have equal number of hobos. So even if all the hobos move to blue states, it will take 10k x 2 x OriginalNumberOfHobos which is still less that 30k x OriginalNumberOfHobos. So why are you denying this solution? Why are you cruel to poor homeless people? Not to mention that if it's successfully implemented, then red states will undoubtedly join in to save money
Yeah the article says 10k... I'm not sure where anyone could do it for that cheap.
And yeah your math sounds nice saying it's cheaper then the 30k but here's the reality. First you won't do it for 10k, that number is bs. Second think of all the homeless people in the US. Now multiple that by even just 10k. Exactly where is that money coming from, and remember it isn't a one time cost. It's every single year. The number would be staggering. It isn't feasible.
You really think red states would join? Yeah no they wouldn't. They'd send more, and laugh while doing it. While watching blue states economy crumble. Then when blue states economy is in shambles they're say "see this is why it doesn't work, vote red ".
I've personally seen what happens when an area builds a ton of low income and homeless shelters, while neighboring areas don't. The other areas literally send the low income and homeless people into the area that built the shelters. You can't build them fast enough. It fucks up the economy. Tons of resources being used and very little taxes being collected. The math doesn't add up.
The same would happen if blue states tried this. The red states would send the homeless and low income.
Chicago sent people to us on busses. No joke.
It takes all states taking the needed steps together.
So. Are you saying that the original article is bs and wishful thinking? Preaching to the choir buddy. I guess then the other solution of incarceration sounds more reasonable huh? Alternative of course is to do nothing and let everybody in the city suffer. That I'm sure is acceptable to you, but not to people who live here like me.
So in your brain you somehow went from me saying this is a financially a bad idea and somehow translates that into "that I'm sure is acceptable to you " that the current system is ok?
That is some serious delusion that you have going.
Actually your math didn't make sense man. I figured it's useless to point out so I just moved on to inevitable conclusion.
Ok let's try this a different way. Lemmy is definitely left leaning. And yet your comments in this thread are being down voted. I going out on a limb and saying even left leaning individuals who believe in doing things like this realize this won't work.
Well you don't have to convince me that most people here are clueless.
Spoken like a true child. You have failed to grasp the problem and you are obviously too ignorant to understand the solution. Grow up.
You're the child who doesn't have to deal with homeless every day. You make your make-believe world where this decades long conversation somehow solves the problem. Meanwhile we're overrun with then and just want peace. My family is not rich we can't afford to move, we can't afford private back yard. But we had to afford car because riding the Max after the second shift is too dangerous for my wife. What is your solution? Pay for everyone housing? Well then implement it. I beg you to do it. Why don't you?
Personal attack much? We have our reasons for living where we live. None of them is your business, but you really shouldn't be attacking me. I'm the victim here. I lived here long before hobo overrun. Why should I move? Why can't they move? Surely it's easier without any possessions. Am I less human then they are?
Good faith? Man, you must be tripping. What good faith do you expect? I keep voting for Democrats in hope that they fix this and they just don't. Every time just talk talk talk. I'm glad you got to signal your virtue and now you going to relax in your nice suburban house while I'm going to brave the horde of sundowners to pick up my kid from daycare.