FranLab is getting evicted

[james_s]

Yep, the reality is the cities subsidise the suburban sprawl, and allow it to exist.  Suburbs aren't self-sustaining.  There's isn't enough property tax or business tax to pay for their infrastructure (in most cases - unusually rich suburbs may be the exception), so the only option for the city is to continue growing the suburban area so that they can get developers and property tax to pay for the new road or new school that they need to support it. 

Cities are not self sustaining either, they are utterly dependent on the rural areas to provide food. For reasons I have never been able to figure out, it generally costs a lot more to live in a city despite the many compromises one has to make to live there. The suburbs are in my opinion drastically superior for living, I can at least stretch out a little, I don't have to fight the crowds everywhere I go, I can take a walk at 10pm and not worry about getting mugged and I don't have any bums camped out on the side of my street stealing anything that isn't nailed down. Cities have their purpose, but I'm not sure why so many people like living in them so much. When I've been stuck downtown due to bus issues I can't really find anything to do. There are trendy bars and clubs and stuff but I have no interest in that. It's just big and crowded and filthy, and you have to pay handsomely to wallow in the crowds and filth.

[james_s]

You really should look into getting a bicycle. I have no problem transporting all kinds of stuff on a bicycle. Actually, transporting long items is much easier. If push comes to shove you can use a bracket or a trailer. Last summer I was in Biarittz and saw many people using a bracket to carry their surf board along the side of their bike or moped.

Use an electric bike and you don't have to peddle that hard. With the right outfit, cold weather and rain aren't an issue; you'll be warm. Wool is a key ingredient. I'm cycling year round nowadays. When the road is icy, I put ty-raps on the rear tire for extra grip. Works excellent.

I have a bicycle, but try biking around Seattle and let me know how that goes. This whole region is mountainous, there are hills everywhere, not quite to the extent of San Francisco but you still can't really go anywhere without going up a long hill somewhere. Then in some places there are bike lanes and some places there aren't, and if you can't bike the whole way then a bike doesn't really work for that trip. An e-bike is a possibility that would mitigate the hills situation but I'd still rather drive my car. Biking on the road with cars is a terrifying experience that I've done a few times and have no intention of ever doing again. During the summer I put my bike in my car and drive over to the park by the bike trail and go for a ride on that, but there is no way I'm going to try to use it for day to day transport. Cars are nice, they're comfortable and versatile, protected from hazards and inclement weather, heated when it's cold out and cooled when it's hot out and offer a lot of cargo space.

[tom66]

I'm not a city-dweller.  I live in a small town in England, but not a suburb.  But, I think there are a few reasons, having lived in the near-centre of a big city in the UK for a few years.

- Everything is close by, you basically never need to drive.  You can go car free if you want.  This is great for your physical health too.  Not everyone can or wants to drive, especially not everywhere, whereas in suburban America you can rarely even go get a pint of milk without driving.  Say you want to go have a drink with friends.  What if there's no bus?  Are you going to pay $50 for a cab to get to the area with the bar? 
 
- The risk of being mugged or harassed is really not that significant (at least for me, being a 6 foot tall white guy).  It never happened to me, and I didn't exactly live in the posh area of town.

- It's only usually expensive if you want a lot of space.  Some people don't care as much about space.  I rented a 1 bedroom flat for less than £600 per month.  Easy to keep clean as a single guy, the whole vacuuming job was like 15 minutes.  Now I have a whole house, mortgage is much more, heating cost is higher (even before energy cost rise), land tax is higher, and I've started hiring a cleaner as a lot of our time was taken up by keeping the place looking halfway decent.  If you're a more extroverted person, you probably don't care as much about where you live, so smaller and closer is better for you.

- Community, some people like living near a lot of other people.

- Jobs, especially if commuting to the job by car is impractical (e.g. centre of London, there are some ridiculously good paying jobs there, but you would never drive there because parking would cost half your salary)

I think this being an engineering forum means there is a strong tendency to introversion, as that just seems to come with engineers as a package deal.  And that's fine.   There's nothing wrong with living in suburbia per se,  the problem is many of these suburban areas are not sustainable in the longer term when they consist solely of housing sprawl and big-box-megamarts served by Walmarts and Home Depots with huge surface car parks -- and it's better to address that now than face huge problems later.

[james_s]

- The risk of being mugged or harassed is really not that significant (at least for me, being a 6 foot tall white guy).  It never happened to me, and I didn't exactly live in the posh area of town.

Realize that this is highly location dependent. A friend of mine grew up in Chicago and has been robbed at gunpoint twice. Seattle where I work is much safer but still not great, I have been hassled by vagrants on many occasions, some of them can be really aggressive and I've seen people openly smoking crack out of a glass pipe multiple times and this is all in broad daylight. A couple years ago there were three fatal shootings within a block of my office and it's in a relatively nice part of town. There are boarded up windows all over the place with some businesses being hit 5-6 times a year. Crime has increased dramatically over the past 2 years.

[tom66]

- The risk of being mugged or harassed is really not that significant (at least for me, being a 6 foot tall white guy).  It never happened to me, and I didn't exactly live in the posh area of town.

Realize that this is highly location dependent. A friend of mine grew up in Chicago and has been robbed at gunpoint twice. Seattle where I work is much safer but still not great, I have been hassled by vagrants on many occasions, some of them can be really aggressive and I've seen people openly smoking crack out of a glass pipe multiple times and this is all in broad daylight. A couple years ago there were three fatal shootings within a block of my office and it's in a relatively nice part of town. There are boarded up windows all over the place with some businesses being hit 5-6 times a year. Crime has increased dramatically over the past 2 years.

A lot of those problems are very American in nature.  You have a significant issue with opioid addiction (because of historical overprescription) and there is a very limited social safety net.  In the US, if you "fall off the horse" so to speak, and you don't have family or a support network, you will probably end up homeless.  Especially if you can't pay for the drugs you need to stay clean, or something like schizophrenia drugs.  That is still a risk in the UK, but a lower one.  Most of the homeless people in the UK are there because of serious mental illness rather than something treatable or manageable.

Longer term countries will have to realise that if you want to avoid the issues like this you need to fund proper social services because the rot from these people causing damage and economic depression is far greater than fixing the problem.  I seem to recall in Finland they worked out that giving everyone homeless an apartment was cheaper than having the police, courts, hospitals deal with the consequences of homelessness.  But it is not an easy problem to solve, and I don't think there is an easy answer that doesn't involve spending billions of dollars.  Hardly politically popular. 

[james_s]

Longer term countries will have to realise that if you want to avoid the issues like this you need to fund proper social services because the rot from these people causing damage and economic depression is far greater than fixing the problem.  I seem to recall in Finland they worked out that giving everyone homeless an apartment was cheaper than having the police, courts, hospitals deal with the consequences of homelessness.  But it is not an easy problem to solve, and I don't think there is an easy answer that doesn't involve spending billions of dollars.  Hardly politically popular.

Far too many people think you can fix it by simply throwing money at the problem. Give them free housing, hand them money, leave them alone and enable them to live in squalor, let criminals out of jail, even violent ones. It doesn't work, I see no compassion in enabling toxic behavior by just allowing vagrants to live on the streets and get high, making a living by stealing whatever they please from those around them.

[PlainName]

just allowing vagrants to live on the streets and get high, making a living by stealing whatever they please from those around them

How do you stop them?

[tom66]

just allowing vagrants to live on the streets and get high, making a living by stealing whatever they please from those around them

How do you stop them?

Certainly not by putting them back in jail.  And it shouldn't be forgotten that keeping someone in jail costs between $30,000 and $60,000 per year depending on the state - then you have the costs of the police, the courts, state-provided lawyer, and any healthcare.  It's not a solution to arrest and release.  Nor is there an option to ignore.  You need a better intervention.

A lot of the issues I think with homelessness come from assuming these people want the life they are in.  Maybe a small percentage do, but the vast majority are just ill, and with the right care and compassion they could be much better off, and that would be an ultimate benefit to society. You can't fix everyone, but you can fix the vast majority and that would be a huge improvement from the current state of things.

It's no coincidence that the countries with better social safety nets, such as the Nordic countries, have lower rates of criminality and homelessness.

[james_s]

How do you stop them?

'
The same way you stop anyone from doing something illegal, arrest them and jail them, if they're suffering from addiction then force them into treatment. There's no point in having a law against something if you're not going to enforce it.

[Stray Electron]

just allowing vagrants to live on the streets and get high, making a living by stealing whatever they please from those around them

How do you stop them?

   One word; Jail.  Then rehabilitation but if they continue to commit crimes, then jail again but for an increasing amount of time.  Eventually they either drop their drug habits and the associated crimes, or they go to jail for a very long time.  Yes, jail time is expense for the taxpayers but far cheaper then the thefts, robberies, assaults and MURDERS and the many other problems that the druggies and the drug dealers commit. 

    Hell, I will bet that right now, the US spends far more per vagrant on social services, health services, police service, public housing, shelters, soup kitchens, etc etc than it would cost to keep each one of them in jail!  The difference is that the STATE pays for ALL of their care while they are in jail and we know down to the penny what that costs, verses the fact that ALL of us including the citizens, robbery victims, businesses, insurance companies, the city governments, the county governments, the state governments, the US government, the churches, etc etc all all paying for the vagrants while they're out running free. 

  Have you ever talked to someone that has had the catalytic converter stolen from their car and asked them how much that cost them?   Anywhere from $2,000 to nearly $10,000! That is just the repair costs and doesn't include their lost wages, rental car expenses or anything else. That is the costs for one single type crime!  And just that single type crime is committed tens of thousands of time PER YEAR in the US city (population about 1 1/2 M) that I live in.

[Stray Electron]

A lot of the issues I think with homelessness come from assuming these people want the life they are in.  Maybe a small percentage do, but the vast majority are just ill, and with the right care and compassion they could be much better off, and that would be an ultimate benefit to society.

  I can see that you've never talked to many homeless people!  I have. And if you ask many of them will tell you flat out that they live that way by choice. They prefer not to have a 9 to 5 job, or the headaches of renting or owning a home or other obligations. And to tell the truth, the safety net in the US is SO GOOD that they are able to live freely on the margins of conventional society.  Sure, there are some people that have fallen on hard times and lost their homes, but how many people can you point to and honestly tell me that they would not have somewhere to go if that happened to them?  I mean NO friends, NO family, NO church, NO public shelter or anywhere else.

    "Homelessness" (choke, choke) becomes an ever increasing lifestyle-choice as societies become wealthier and people with money are more and more generous and are willing to give it to others; many of which would rather live on handouts than work for a living.

    The US isn't India or Africa where you DO see really poor and completely homeless people and where there ARE people starving to death in the streets!  People can and do live quite well in the US without a home, job, mortgage, etc.  Every street corner begger that I see in the US, and I see at least two dozen every day, has tattoos, decent clothes and are well fed and appear to be healthy. And many of them are sporting gold jewelry!

   People in the US, the UK and Europe NEED to go to some of the POOR countries in Asia, Africa, India, Mexico and South America and SEE what real poverty, homelessness, disease and starvation really looks like!

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

And then there are lots of uninhabited islands. Drop them off with all the tools they need to survive or kill themselves off, whichever comes first.

[tautech]

And then there are lots of uninhabited islands. Drop them off with all the tools they need to survive or kill themselves off, whichever comes first.

Alcatraz, or are there not enough hungry sharks between it and the mainland ?

[tom66]

One word; Jail.  Then rehabilitation but if they continue to commit crimes, then jail again but for an increasing amount of time.  Eventually they either drop their drug habits and the associated crimes, or they go to jail for a very long time.  Yes, jail time is expense for the taxpayers but far cheaper then the thefts, robberies, assaults and MURDERS and the many other problems that the druggies and the drug dealers commit. 

Is it?  The average vagrant in, say, Philly, spends so much time stoned or drunk out of their mind that they can't do any more damage than just existing.  The cost of processing and jailing hundreds of thousands of people is utterly impractical, at a minimum of $30,000 per year.  And, don't forget the US already has the largest incarcerated population of any developed nation.  About 1% of all citizens are in jail.  How is that working out for decriminalising society? 

I've no problem with convicting actual criminals, but it's definitely not going to solve the problem with mass homelessness. 

  I can see that you've never talked to many homeless people!  I have. And if you ask many of them will tell you flat out that they live that way by choice. They prefer not to have a 9 to 5 job, or the headaches of renting or owning a home or other obligations. And to tell the truth, the safety net in the US is SO GOOD that they are able to live freely on the margins of conventional society.  Sure, there are some people that have fallen on hard times and lost their homes, but how many people can you point to and honestly tell me that they would not have somewhere to go if that happened to them?  I mean NO friends, NO family, NO church, NO public shelter or anywhere else.

    "Homelessness" (choke, choke) becomes an ever increasing lifestyle-choice as societies become wealthier and people with money are more and more generous and are willing to give it to others; many of which would rather live on handouts than work for a living.

I have also spoken to and met many people who have been homeless, and have managed to get back on their feet.  The social net in the UK is pretty poor.  I don't have direct experience with the US, but I doubt it is much better.  None of those people have been homeless by choice.  To be entirely clear, by homeless I mean the strictest definition. I do not mean a street beggar who goes home every day.  I mean someone sleeping rough on the street, who would be lucky to have enough money for food the next day.  Do you really think that's a lifestyle choice? 

I think there's a big difference in viewpoint on this, and you're not the first to express this view.

Many Americans I have met see homelessness as a choice, but the reality is homelessness is usually as a result of a disaster in someone's life, such as divorce, being kicked out by parents, drug abuse, or major trauma.

Very very few people would genuinely choose to live on the streets in comparison to living in a warm, comfortable home, even if they are awful people at heart.

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

Not far enough away. I'm looking at somewhere in the Pacific.
A terrestrial Earth bound Ceti Alpha 5.

[Nusa]

  Have you ever talked to someone that has had the catalytic converter stolen from their car and asked them how much that cost them?   Anywhere from $2,000 to nearly $10,000! That is just the repair costs and doesn't include their lost wages, rental car expenses or anything else. That is the costs for one single type crime!  And just that single type crime is committed tens of thousands of time PER YEAR in the US city (population about 1 1/2 M) that I live in.

My observation is nearly all the people who steal catalytic converters have homes, cars, and some heavy tools. In other words, you picked a crime that requires resources the actual homeless don't have handy, as a rule. It happens more in the urban areas simply because that's where the supply is densely packed and not garaged so you can pick out the Priuses and other high-value targets.

[PlainName]

It's no coincidence that the countries with better social safety nets, such as the Nordic countries, have lower rates of criminality and homelessness.

Maybe it's just too cold there to be  homeless

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

A good solution for those scumbags is air ride suspension...with a remote control.
Trap them (or whatever your flavour) under the vehicle for the cops.

[PlainName]

The difference is that the STATE pays for ALL of their care while they are in jail

I wonder where the state gets its funds from.

[tom66]

This is a graph of incarceration per US state, compared to the countries of the world: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html

[sokoloff]

One word; Jail.  Then rehabilitation but if they continue to commit crimes, then jail again but for an increasing amount of time.  Eventually they either drop their drug habits and the associated crimes, or they go to jail for a very long time.  Yes, jail time is expense for the taxpayers but far cheaper then the thefts, robberies, assaults and MURDERS and the many other problems that the druggies and the drug dealers commit. 

Is it?  The average vagrant in, say, Philly, spends so much time stoned or drunk out of their mind that they can't do any more damage than just existing.

The second law of thermodynamics ensures that it's far easier for them to cause damage than it is for citizens to restore afterwards.

The cost of processing and jailing hundreds of thousands of people is utterly impractical, at a minimum of $30,000 per year.

200K * $30K/yr is only $6B/year. That's only a little more than Section 40103 of last year's federal budget and is less than Section 40105 ("community restoration and revitalization", which seems like it would apply here).

And, don't forget the US already has the largest incarcerated population of any developed nation.  About 1% of all citizens are in jail.  How is that working out for decriminalising society? 

I've no problem with convicting actual criminals, but it's definitely not going to solve the problem with mass homelessness. 

As long as we define "actual criminals" as something close to "people who have committed crimes", then I think we agree strongly on the first part. I want no part of a state apparatus that forces peaceful, law-abiding homeless to do anything they don't want to do. I do want a state apparatus to protect peaceful, law-abiding citizens against the actions of people who have demonstrated the actions of breaking one or more of society's laws. (That's the exact moment when they transitioned from homeless to "actual criminal".)

Edit to add: as a non-drug user myself, we should repeal all of our drug laws lower than major-trafficking and release all offenders whose only offense was a non-violent/no threat of violence, non-major-trafficking. That is a substantial driver of our incarceration rates and is, IMO, unconscionable, but largely unrelated to the homelessness issue.

[Stray Electron]

The difference is that the STATE pays for ALL of their care while they are in jail

I wonder where the state gets its funds from.

  Really? Is that a trick question? 

  My point was that we know exactly what it costs to keep someone in person but I'm betting that all of the hidden costs to society from NOT keeping them in prison is much, much greater and are paid in many, many incalculable ways.

[sokoloff]

The difference is that the STATE pays for ALL of their care while they are in jail

I wonder where the state gets its funds from.

In the case of the federal government, it borrows them with a loose promise to have taxpayers pay them back eventually.

In the case of individual states, there is, as required, a much tighter linkage between the borrowing and taxation.

[tom66]

My point was that we know exactly what it costs to keep someone in person but I'm betting that all of the hidden costs to society from NOT keeping them in prison is much, much greater and are paid in many, many incalculable ways.

As other countries have discovered, there are not just two things you can do:  nothing or prison.   You can actually work with people and try to make them better.   Better healthcare (freely accessible to all), a social safety net so if they lose their job they're not homeless in a few months,  proper programs to deal with drug abuse,  and even housing them. 

Those are cheaper than putting people in prison.  It's very much something that should be reserved for the worst in society, not used as a first line of defence.  I'd say we're probably too soft in the UK on repeated criminality, but insufficient at intervening for first-timers.

It requires spending money, but if you actually can fix these people and they go back into the workforce, that's a huge benefit to society as they pay taxes now. 

[sokoloff]

It requires spending money, but if you actually can fix these people and they go back into the workforce, that's a huge benefit to society as they pay taxes now.

In a country where about 57% of households pay no federal income tax (up from 44% before the pandemic), that is not quite as torrential a river of financial power to be tapped into as it would logically seem.

Yes, they'll pay some additional sales taxes and some may pay state income taxes.