If I put a gun to your head and told you where to live, would you feel that I was giving, or taking away, your personal liberty? Which of these two things should our government be responsible for? My Constitution says the former.

Without threat of violence, housing projects such as the Harlem River Houses have been immensely successful. Other than the US and Canada, do any other first world countries have homelessness problems of the magnitude we're seeing? Why does the US lead the world in homeless and prison populations; if stricter laws were the answer, shouldn't that have worked by now?

> If I put a gun to your head and told you where to live, would you feel that I was giving, or taking away, your personal liberty?

Context: I’m in your living room and refuse to leave.

Private property.

> Private property

Valid. This is a tragedy of the commons. The problem is they’re being used for the private benefit of those camping on them. That will eventually undermine support for funding them.

Yes, that's why you spend money on housing; for pennies on the police state dollar. Granting a person a room is a one-time cost, which can be diminished with larger builds, and a modest upkeep. The criminal justice system incurs significant ongoing costs per incarceree. Moreover, a criminal record is a barrier to employment, which tends to entrench people within the criminal justice system -- these costs can avoidably result in a lifetime of wasted taxpayer dollars.

Getting a person a room is, indeed, cheaper than running the whole criminal justice system if there had been such a person, giving a room to whom would stop all the homeless crime I'd be first to pay for their room my own personal money. What you meant, I believe, was running a free housing program for everyone, not a room for one person, right? And then the one-time cost is not one-time anymore, as people will be constantly demanding free housing, and modest upkeep is not so modest especially with larger build. And you still need to run the criminal justice system.

I am shooting in the dark here, but are you even aware of the various free housing programs that the US already had tried in the past[1]? Those did not solve the issues and the proponents blame them being too cheap on the failure.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...

I grew up a block away from housing projects in Seattle, where many of my friends lived growing up. They were recently demolished, the majority of their residents sent packing (hello, homeless population!) and the developers who were granted the land sold most of the houses at market rate. Yeah, I'm familiar with what's been tried.

When a halfassed attempt fails, do not conclude that a full and honest effort would also fail.

So if I got you right, you are saying that not enough money had been spent on the government housing (after insisting it will cost mere pittance to build and maintain)? These programs were not cheap already so whatever you propose should cost even more.

"True communism has never been tried."

Maybe look at WHY government-built housing is always so lousy. Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.

> Maybe look at WHY government-built housing is always so lousy.

Thank you, this is a crucial aspect of Harlem that make it such a shining example in my mind. It was undertaken in a period when human dignity was given more weight. And while the apartments themselves seem stark to modern tastes, they were built about a century ago and in their time, contributed to a cultural renaissance.

A big problem is penny-pinching. You can sacrifice a ton of quality and end up only saving a few points on a total build cost, and paying way more in lifetime maintenance and replacement cost. Modern conservativism is penny wise, pound foolish, and that mindset is ever-present.

> Saying "We need to change the whole system" is just a cop-out.

Right on. But I didn't say that and I don't see anybody else saying that here.

If the city says “You cannot live on the sidewalk, in public parks, or in Bart stations,” that’s a far cry from putting a gun to someone’s head.

The city can offer other options:

- shelters in the city

- shelters outside the city if shelter in the city are full (this is my controversial opinion, but if you can’t afford housing in a specific place, you may need to live in a different place until you can afford it. I’d love to live in Malibu, but I can’t afford it. I don’t think it’s my right to plop myself down on the sidewalk and shoot heroin until the city of Malibu builds me free housing. That’s not a realistic expectation.)

- bus fare return to family

- treatment for addicts

You didn't answer the question.

Unless the Harlem River House is your answer. So if that were available, THEN you'd be OK with compulsion?

No, I am not okay with compulsion... you're asking me at which point has the government given enough gifts to justify authoritarianism. And I'm telling you, I don't accept your authoritarianism, and there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.

OK, I think we have it, finally: you think people are entitled to live on the street. Good to know.

"There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.

> "There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.

Or, humility. Nothing is certain in civic planning. But I suspect you'd jump on me if I claimed it was a foolproof plan, wouldn't you? But it's observed all over the world: in places where housing is affordable and available, there isn't a homelessness crisis. Most homeless people don't wanna be. Remove them, and the community goes away, and with it, all but a very few diehards that exist in practically every city.

Really? Name some of your ideal cities. We'll check and see what their policies are for sleeping on the streets.

So if they do force people to move on, despite this "affordable and available" housing, that pretty well destroys your argument, doesn't it? Because all compulsion is bad, as you said.

> there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.

pray tell

I said so upthread, Harlem River House is the model. Government building out large and livable housing.

Did you also say that compulsion is OK, if Harlem River House-level housing is available?

A little research shows this to be a New Deal project that doesn't seem particularly replicable or sustainable:

https://www.courthousenews.com/harlem-public-housing-tenants...

https://pix11.com/news/3-big-problems-plague-harlem-river-ho...

Holy shit, for the third time in a row, no, I am not okay with authoritarianism. I said that with sufficient housing, it should not be necessary. No. No compulsion.

> it should not be necessary

there's that juvenile sentiment again. And there "shouldn't" be any burglaries, car thefts, armed robbery, or murder, either. Nevertheless, they've always existed and always will. And compulsion will always be a part of the civilized state.

My "should" is well supported in global trends. And American exceptionalism in this regard is self-perpetuating.

> global trends

and yet you won't name any of your ideal cities, nor comment on the Harlem House, that New Deal-era paradigm. Or note that people living in there are paying rents, albeit subsidized. But you want to give homeless people that, except for free.

"Inchoate yearnings" pretty well describes it for you.

It might, if laws were enforced. Most everyone I know left Norcal precisely because enforcement is nonexistent. Try calling the police in SF/Oakland. Hell, just google what it is actually like if you try: https://abc7news.com/post/oakland-76-gas-station-burglary-ro...

People who claim that "laws do not work" are usually ignoring that laws need ENFORCEMENT.

It sounds like you’re looking for an absolute solution which, as you suggest, will never exist without the use of state violence.

I believe most people would be satisfied if the problem were to simply become rare enough that they didn’t have to think about it.

If that’s the goal, I think improving housing quality can get you close.