Unlike The MTA the Paris metro shuts down at 1AM. So no one is camping out on the platform, for long.

And last time I was there the controllers were scanning passes quite frequently.

> So no one is camping out on the platform, for long.

I've never been in the Paris métro after it shut down, but are you saying the homeless people camping in some stations in the evenings, wrapped in their sleeping bags, get up at 1 a.m. and file out? I somehow doubt that.

They are kicked out. The doors are locked.

I have spent a couple of nights in locked metro stations myself : before locking, they just warn that they're going to lock. Whoever's still inside is locked in until morning, but there's no kicking out.

That must be one of the bigger stations like Châtelet. There are endless hallways and tunnels to hide in. A simpler 1-train station will have 2-4 exits and they will certainly put you out.

Using subway stations as shelters during off peak hours is a masterstroke of efficient infrastructure. Every city should do that.

nope, the right would be everyone be able to have a place to live. There is no dignity in supporting the poverty.

What if some people don't want a place to live, just somewhere dry to spend the night?

It depends on the station and season. In winter, station masters have a higher tolerance for camping - and it's worth mentioning that it comes down to the decision of station controller, not the RATP.

kind of a strawman. Maybe one could also find better ways to give shelter to homeless. And for the bad kid there are other ways than using tickets for that.

Laws are kind of a non sequitor. Maybe one could also find better ways to motivate people to treat each other decently.

But I’m going to continue funding homicide investigations.

“Don’t make things livable in small and practical ways, just hold out for total structural revolution and the solution to multigenerational and intractable social problems” is an infuriating line that unfortunately guides much of San Francisco policymaking.

(1) Its not homicide vs. housing. Both are fundable without impacting the other, that's a straw man.

(2) You live in a society and pretending that you don't and funding nothing isn't going to make the problem go away, it's going to be there getting worse. This is the dark side to America's individualism. Everyone looks out for themselves and pretends nobody else's problems should matter to them, then look around at the crap pile that leaves behind and wonders whose responsibility it should be -- not theirs to be sure.

Forcing transit riders in particular to empathize with the depths of human misery as their punishment for wanting to get around in an unjust world doesn’t cause the overthrow of capitalism. It just repels transit riders.

I'm a transit rider, and I empathize with the less fortunate. It's hardly a punishment for getting around town. I don't want to overthrow capitalism, it's definitely got it's advantages, which is why I'm for democratic socialist reform. I've seen great transit, and awful transit. SF juts happens to have the latter, and no amount of throwing our hands up and ignoring it is going to solve it.

Are you saying that depriving people of places to sleep makes the city more livable.

I avoid BART as much as possible because of the filth and crazy people. Often the escalators are broken because they're clogged with human feces.[1] And that's just with homeless people sleeping outside the stations or on the cars while BART is operating. It would be far worse if they slept in the stations overnight.

So yes, I'm willing to tell some homeless people to go to a shelter (of which there are plenty in the city) rather than ruin a transit system used by half a million commuters.

1. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Human-waste-shuts-dow...

It only takes one person reeking of urine to make a whole train car a vile place to spend any time. So yes.

if there are so many people with problems that this happens often, your city has much more important problems to solve(helping those people) than "nice transit" (my city & most cities have to do this as well tho .. i am probably hypocritical in this)

We are not going to solve the problem of democratic governance by a majority-homeowner electorate. To the extent that a homeowner electorate would ever allow homelessness to be solved:

- Can't solve homelessness without mass affordability.

- Can't have mass affordability without density.

- Can't have density when voters are worried about congestion and parking impacts of development.

- Can't stop worrying about congestion and parking impacts of development when you drive everywhere.

- Won't stop driving everywhere until transit is attractive.

Homelesness and repulsive transit are a feedback loop. We have to break it somewhere. Fare enforcement is a lever we actually have.