It’s a bit of a catch-22, unfortunately. Homeless camps are not exactly safe places to live. Fire codes and zoning laws are not arbitrary things, they exist for reasons.
I would find it reasonable to require that the government has to have someplace for those homeless people to go before dismantling their camps, though.
The political problem is that voters who are paying rent tend to be annoyed by the government giving people apartments for free.
Housing first as a model is legitimate and works (at least more than doing nothing or maintaining terrible shelters forever), but the political resentment it builds is a real problem that no amount of finger-wagging makes go away.
Maybe something like these “tinyshelters” would be a good compromise - they’re safer and more comfortable than ramshackle tent-and-cardboard encampments, but they’re still far short of what I’d call a “free apartment.”
It’s a bit of a catch-22, unfortunately. Homeless camps are not exactly safe places to live. Fire codes and zoning laws are not arbitrary things, they exist for reasons.
I would find it reasonable to require that the government has to have someplace for those homeless people to go before dismantling their camps, though.
The political problem is that voters who are paying rent tend to be annoyed by the government giving people apartments for free.
Housing first as a model is legitimate and works (at least more than doing nothing or maintaining terrible shelters forever), but the political resentment it builds is a real problem that no amount of finger-wagging makes go away.
Maybe something like these “tinyshelters” would be a good compromise - they’re safer and more comfortable than ramshackle tent-and-cardboard encampments, but they’re still far short of what I’d call a “free apartment.”
Is it any less dangerous than exposure though?
That’s a false dichotomy.
Ok.