They aren’t forced to take it, or get kicked out for being violent for example. Now don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have these programs and offer it to all, but it does mean you’ll still have some who will sleep rough unless you start doing forced institutionalization.
Like it or not that means a bit of hostile architecture is still needed even if you’ve done everything else right to keep these bits of public infrastructure clean/safe/available for that public it’s meant for.
… imagine USA providing sufficient housing (or any infrastructure and safety nets really)? Lul. There were successful efforts against it actually, according to copious amount of news & practices that have normalised working class living on the street somehow.
NIMBY. The real culprit is the housing crisis. Build more homes, reduce prices of homes and people can stay. You can’t just make shelters and hope these people get on their 2 feet if everyone is struggling.
As for the choice thing, I was being a bit hyperbolic but there are some people who really do choose to be outside of a shelter. These are either addicted or mentally unstable people.
Oh, yes, ofc, basically all EU countries do that to divergent extend (mostly in term of non-profit housing), it keeps the supply part of the market in check not only by increasing supply, but also by not being incectivized by hiking rents just because they can.
Afaik US does or did that too, but I guess was always lobbied against.
The “hyperbole” - it’s like mentioning some people would actually like to die in context of defunding hospitals or starting a war.
You think these people aren’t offered housing and assistance? You seem to not understand the situation.
Clearly the housing and assistance offered isn’t sufficient.
They aren’t forced to take it, or get kicked out for being violent for example. Now don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have these programs and offer it to all, but it does mean you’ll still have some who will sleep rough unless you start doing forced institutionalization.
Like it or not that means a bit of hostile architecture is still needed even if you’ve done everything else right to keep these bits of public infrastructure clean/safe/available for that public it’s meant for.
… imagine USA providing sufficient housing (or any infrastructure and safety nets really)? Lul. There were successful efforts against it actually, according to copious amount of news & practices that have normalised working class living on the street somehow.
NIMBY. The real culprit is the housing crisis. Build more homes, reduce prices of homes and people can stay. You can’t just make shelters and hope these people get on their 2 feet if everyone is struggling.
As for the choice thing, I was being a bit hyperbolic but there are some people who really do choose to be outside of a shelter. These are either addicted or mentally unstable people.
Oh, yes, ofc, basically all EU countries do that to divergent extend (mostly in term of non-profit housing), it keeps the supply part of the market in check not only by increasing supply, but also by not being incectivized by hiking rents just because they can.
Afaik US does or did that too, but I guess was always lobbied against.
The “hyperbole” - it’s like mentioning some people would actually like to die in context of defunding hospitals or starting a war.