Re:California's constitution makes affordable housing hard t...
by sl1ck731 on Sunday February 03, 2019 @05:06PM
(#19072527)
I don't know California specifically, but the homeless in Chicago congregate in the business areas and tourist places, not the residential areas as much.
I would assume California is similar since most people who live there are less likely to give things to them every day.
Re:California's constitution makes affordable housing hard t...
by barbecue_sauce on Sunday February 03, 2019 @05:57PM
(#19072780)
They may congregate there, but that is not necessarily where they "live". Not all homeless are panhandlers. In Philadelphia, a sizable portion of homeless live in tent cities on top of decommissioned raised rail lines and under bridges.
- Is there evidence that they would be less safe than makeshift homeless communities? My instinct would be to assume that homeless people in California are already congregating somewhere, and that those areas have increased crime risks. Does public/low-income housing make it worse than the current situation already is?
- Should we weigh the overall loss in safety for middle-income residents against the overall safety of poorer or homeless residents? My instinct is to say that the homeless population in California is part of its constituency, and that their needs should be considered equally with middle/upper income residents. Suppose overall crime in an area is increased, but the area simultaneously becomes safer for the homeless population itself. Is there a ratio between those changes where we would say, "it's worth the increased crime."?