11

6 comments

[–] jobes 2 points (+2|-0)

Also this area sounds like prime real estate which would mean that operating costs in such an area would be excessive.

That is a topic that is always avoided when it comes to discussing where to put the homeless. Many people make the argument that you need to build shelters all over the city rather than building shelters on say the outskirts of the city. The argument becomes that you are displacing the homeless if you relocate them and then that is somehow a violation of human rights. The cost of maintaining one shelter in a nice neighborhood would be better used to maintain multiple shelters in a lower cost district - not to mention the loss of tourist or business revenue having the shelter in a nice area.

I obviously support not building homeless shelters in the nicer areas, but at the same time I don't think creating large tent cities with thousands of homeless on the edge of a city is really a good idea...or is it?

[–] Justintoxicated 1 points (+1|-0)

don't think creating large tent cities with thousands of homeless on the edge of a city is really a good idea...or is it?

It certainly did not work for Herbert Hoover.

The cost of maintaining one shelter in a nice neighborhood would be better used to maintain multiple shelters in a lower cost district

I walk by a methadone clinic everyday, it's a homeless hotspot but because it's in a neighborhood between 2 super wealthy neighborhoods people are okay with it. It's kind of a happy medium, it's an area full of bars and music clubs so being a bit gritty helps them out a lot. I guess yu just have to be strategic about it, like how Oakland sends all their homeless to San Francisco..

[–] jobes 1 points (+1|-0)

like how Oakland sends all their homeless to San Francisco

Can we send our homeless to San Francisco too?