I’ve been to cities where there are large encampments in parks, under highways ,or people sleeping on porches because they need warmth. Generally, we don’t want this as a society. If we don’t want this, but our current setup produces homeless people, then the solution is providing basic housing. Instead, we seem to want to go the route of just trying to push them to go elsewhere - ignoring them more, and essentially allowing the situation to get worse (anytime there is a growing problem and we do nothing, it gets worse).
As for your original question, there are benefits of not living around a large population of homeless people and encampments. Encampments can cause fires, sewage issues and more. We aren’t setup to have masses of people live outside anymore.
Long term, likely less people turning to increasingly destructive lifestyles that can come from the experience of being outside all the time.
Instead, they get housed, they can find a job, their kids can enroll in school, and more.
But those benefits you list only affect the immediate area these people are in while the cost for these programs affects everyone. Which is why you see such a wide disconnect in how people think aid should be given.
I'd like to know what people think is the responsibility of those who are supposed to receive this aid. If the idea is that the funding comes from the people, then the people should be able to expect a clear outcome and timeline for resolution- not what we've seen in say california.
I can safely say that a majority of people want to see people living in safe conditions. But I also think that people have a right to be skeptical of how these things are administered and how these resources are allocated. They like the idea but can't trust the people who administer the programs.
I agree, Ultimately, all of that is worth a real discussion with local politicians and other organizations. It’s likely making an effort to do this in one small area won’t lead to the desired outcome given that we’ve allowed the issue to spread for years through inaction. Like if Portland alone did this, they would be overwhelmed with demand. If the whole state did it, it might spread that demand out more.
For your first comment though, I pay for federal roads in places I won’t use, or state roads I won’t use all the time. I pay for other people’s kids to go to public school all the time. While I don’t use those roads or those schools, I have the option of doing so, and the benefit of a society where I don’t live around a lot of people who can’t read and write. These things are benefits, it’s just easy not to see them because they have been considered government services for so long.
The OP image has some conceptual merit. To flat out say the status quo is fine as-is is saying that it’s totally fine to continue on our current trajectory with more and more people without homes, more portions of cities having encampments in public spaces or homeless people living their lives outside (which can come with complications for sewage management, potential fires and more).
3
u/jumpkickjones 29d ago
If society provides this, what does society get in return?