You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-4 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Solarpunk Urbanism

!urbanism@slrpnk.net

Create post

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:

Community stats

  • 441

    Monthly active users

  • 120

    Posts

  • 661

    Comments