this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1338 points (98.1% liked)

Solarpunk Urbanism

1835 readers
2 users here now

A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.

Checkout these related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to 26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

@stabby_cicada

I distrust toots that assert something without providing a link
I was lucky and found a link to the 31K figure; sounds partially like it does NOT apply to all homeless people, just some small percentage, so probably a bullshit number

https://homelessvoice.org/the-cost-to-criminalize-homelessness/

[–] stabby_cicada 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I appreciate the link!

The article, I think, is very clear on how those dollar amounts were measured, and I don't think they're bullshit at all, but everybody here can read the article and decide for themselves.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Also, they quote $10k for "supportive housing" and show a picture of San Francisco. I guarantee that's not accurate. The state needs to pay to house these people, but we need to be realistic about the cost.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Housing in places like SF is expensive because of private landlords jacking up proces to the moon. If the government owns the property and gets to control the cost then it’s really not any more expensive than housing them anywhere else. Better still it puts those people within the range of public services like transit so they can actually work on getting themselves into a better situation.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

And where does the government get this land from?

[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Government identifies optimal residential location for facility. Invites largest residential land owner in that location over. Place land lenders head in guillotine. Presents document to sign over land to the government assuring them they can maintain possession of their head in turn. Validate signature. Remove head so they can’t claim they signed under duress.

If they refuse to sign then remove head and forge signature.

Needs strict compartmentalization. Group A identifies optimal location and knows nothing about anyone else.

Group B finds land owner but knows nothing about why or who it’s for.

Group C secures ownership transfer documents and sends to a drop box

Group D delivers landowners to intake facility but knows only who they are getting and to where.

Group E transports landowner to meeting facility/room.

Group F picks up transfer documents and holds meeting with land owner. Sends documents to city hall.

Nobody knows or talks to anyone outside of their group or is provided any information on why they are performing their portion of the process. Group F needs to be strictly limited to a very small number of people. Vetting for group F is done by kidnapping a potential candidates young children and spouse while leaving a note where they are to report for work. Perform their duties for six months to have their family safely returned. During the exit interview remind the group F individual and kidnapped party that all group F members that have ever been involved in the history of the program, their family along with any subsequent family members will be executed should they ever speak to anyone regarding the existence of the program.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Cities have more property than you’d think. They homd a lot of it so they don’t get locked out of being able to do things like this.

[–] failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to -1 points 4 months ago

@KevonLooney

yeah, for sure !! and that doesn't include support; a lot of homeless are just bad luck, but others need support (rehab) which is $$