Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. Yes, technically, mass-relocation of homeless could solve Portland's homeless problem, but it simply shifts the burden somewhere else.
Second, the article specifically mentions the mayor's inaction to utilize the police and to enforce a ban on tent cities. It doesn't talk about shelters, mental health facilities, drug rehab, or counseling.
Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area?
Why shouldn't we send you somewhere that you don't want to live? They're people - not cattle.
Besides he did make a point against your argument. Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? We've got our own homeless to take care of so you can keep yours, thanks.
But, generally, I've never come across a compelling argument or solution about homelessness.
> Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland?
Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free?
And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places.
I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland?
>Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want?
I know you don't believe this, because if they could then they'd just demand housing in Portland.
>Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free?
Perhaps we could widen the scope of the question and then you could answer it: Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free?
>And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places.
I actually don't agree on the economic efficiency. For all the whining about NIMBYs when it comes to real estate costs on HN, everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless. Besides like I said the point is contact (no matter how expensive that contact might be).
>I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
Of course - that's the point of contact. Contact -> Conflict -> Resolution. If your resolution is just to remove contact then I think you're failing on a societal level.
Are you not aware that homeless people don't live and die in the cities of their birth? That in fact the homeless aren't owned by any particular municipality?
> Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free?
Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right?
> everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless
I don't think that's literally true and I think that's an important distinction. Someone would probably allow homeless people to camp on their property, were they allowed to do so.
But, just like the opposition to mobile home (RV) parks – tho considerably more intense! – there are vanishingly few places where living so 'rudely' is legal or even de-facto allowed. Even cities, like Portland, that do allow tent cities typically don't allow them to remain in the same place for decades.
Obviously, I'm not sure the relevance though. They may not be 'owned' by a municipality but they exist in one. Why should expensive areas be able to just export the homeless to cheap areas? If anything expensive areas like Portland have the tax base to take care of them better than rural Nebraska.
>Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right?
Well you and I just fundamentally disagree but to engage here: By this token why push the burden of the homeless onto us Midwesterners? This makes it seem like you're putting on us either (1) the positive right to take care of them which you won't provide or (2) the ugliness of letting them die in the streets which you're unwilling to tolerate.
So once again, they exist in Portland, if you don't think they have a right to life, then they can die in Portland, we want no part of it.
In response to the second one, the city may be taking a number of steps to fight homelessness. Shelters, mental health facilities, drug rehab programs, and counseling can all help the issue without relocation.
Also, I'm just not sure relocation is completely a bad thing. Portland is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, with rent being prohibitively expensive to the lower class unless several people congeal in a single apartment. Not everyone can do that. How is it bad if they are relocated to a cheaper part of the country?