If the alternative is nothing then I guess yeah. I’d rather they get the subway as shelter until a proper solution is in place than them being condemned to die.
The subway should be suitable for disabled people to use. If that makes the subway a home for the homeless, that isn’t the fault of the choice to make the subway suitable for disabled people.
Homeless people will find some place to stay. If you make places more unpleasant until homeless people find somewhere else to stay, and then you make that place unpleasant until they move away from there, etc., then all you’re doing is spending massive amounts of money to make the entire city unpleasant and still end up with homeless people in the least unpleasant spots.
I agree with you almost completely. The issue is if the homeless prevents the space from being suitable for disabled people or other commuters, then this is the “less worse” option from the subway’s perspective. The subway is focused on creating a safe and clean commuter environment; it’s not within their power to solve homelessness so they have little choice but to make everything a bit worse for everyone to stop the problem they’re dealing with from making it even worse yet for everyone.
it is not within their power to solve homelessness completely, but they can contribute to it. if they simply post “the city should build shelters for homeless people” on their feed or website, it sends a clear signal that is hard to ignore, as millions of people see it each day. that would move politics to care for people. yet they don’t, and that’s their negligence.
the subway’s perspective. The subway is focused on creating a safe and clean commuter environment
Well there’s your problem. Your subway organisation is myopically focused on making its own little corner as “well-functioning” as possible even at the cost of the rest of the city. It ignores the social harm it causes to whatever the next place is that homeless people decide to congregate instead (and the additional harm it causes to homeless people by forcing them to stay in less hospitable locations, and the additional harm it causes everyone in those homeless people’s vicinity because they are more desperate on account of staying in less hospitable environments and thus more likely to resort to crime).
Sorry, I’m bumping up against Poe’s Law with this comment so I think I’m misunderstanding your point.
I don’t own a subway, it’s not my organisation. I was just using my imagination to put myself in the shoes of others to understand their decisions.
Now then: You’re literally stating that having homeless people in a space causes social harm, and that making a place less hospitable for the homeless, even if it improves that place for its main function, is also a societal bad. Let’s accept that for the sake of argument. Why are the homeless camping in the subway? Doesn’t that mean they’ve already passed down from further up this displacement chain and the subway is also a victim of the same thing?
The subway and the homeless are both just dealing with their situations in the best ways they can. Asking the subway to house the homeless in their corridors is about as helpful as just telling those homeless people to stop being homeless.
Why are the homeless camping in the subway? Doesn’t that mean they’ve already passed down from further up this displacement chain and the subway is also a victim of the same thing?
The subway is an inanimate location, it can not be a victim. The people of the city that may use the subway are a victim, but less so than if the subway was made less hospitable for everyone without improving the situation of the homeless in the city.
Asking the subway to house the homeless in their corridors is about as helpful as just telling those homeless people to stop being homeless.
All it would take for the homeless to stop being homeless is for the cops to stop throwing homeless people out of buildings that haven’t been used for a year. Homeless people are constantly doing their best to stop being homeless, and the state and other people keep violently attacking them to make them homeless again.
Meanwhile all it would take for the subway organisation is to do its job of making the subway a nice place to be. If that makes it the nicest place homeless don’t get attacked by cops, that’s not the subway organisation’s fault.
i think that the millions of vacant homes should house the homeless, but since thats seemingly impossible then sure I’d rather they keep the benches for the homeless to lay on than this
No, I was being a bit facetious in my response to the comment that the solution is housing the homeless, not making things less hospitable. It’s of course not within the Subway’s powers to actually solve homelessness so giving them flack for picking the less worse option with their limited options instead of magically solving the root of the problem is silly.
Get mad at the people who are actually responsible for dealing with the root cause, not the ones needing to make tough choices dealing with the reality of it.
You think the subway should house the homeless?
If the alternative is nothing then I guess yeah. I’d rather they get the subway as shelter until a proper solution is in place than them being condemned to die.
The subway should be suitable for disabled people to use. If that makes the subway a home for the homeless, that isn’t the fault of the choice to make the subway suitable for disabled people.
Homeless people will find some place to stay. If you make places more unpleasant until homeless people find somewhere else to stay, and then you make that place unpleasant until they move away from there, etc., then all you’re doing is spending massive amounts of money to make the entire city unpleasant and still end up with homeless people in the least unpleasant spots.
I agree with you almost completely. The issue is if the homeless prevents the space from being suitable for disabled people or other commuters, then this is the “less worse” option from the subway’s perspective. The subway is focused on creating a safe and clean commuter environment; it’s not within their power to solve homelessness so they have little choice but to make everything a bit worse for everyone to stop the problem they’re dealing with from making it even worse yet for everyone.
it is not within their power to solve homelessness completely, but they can contribute to it. if they simply post “the city should build shelters for homeless people” on their feed or website, it sends a clear signal that is hard to ignore, as millions of people see it each day. that would move politics to care for people. yet they don’t, and that’s their negligence.
Well there’s your problem. Your subway organisation is myopically focused on making its own little corner as “well-functioning” as possible even at the cost of the rest of the city. It ignores the social harm it causes to whatever the next place is that homeless people decide to congregate instead (and the additional harm it causes to homeless people by forcing them to stay in less hospitable locations, and the additional harm it causes everyone in those homeless people’s vicinity because they are more desperate on account of staying in less hospitable environments and thus more likely to resort to crime).
Sorry, I’m bumping up against Poe’s Law with this comment so I think I’m misunderstanding your point.
I don’t own a subway, it’s not my organisation. I was just using my imagination to put myself in the shoes of others to understand their decisions.
Now then: You’re literally stating that having homeless people in a space causes social harm, and that making a place less hospitable for the homeless, even if it improves that place for its main function, is also a societal bad. Let’s accept that for the sake of argument. Why are the homeless camping in the subway? Doesn’t that mean they’ve already passed down from further up this displacement chain and the subway is also a victim of the same thing?
The subway and the homeless are both just dealing with their situations in the best ways they can. Asking the subway to house the homeless in their corridors is about as helpful as just telling those homeless people to stop being homeless.
The subway is an inanimate location, it can not be a victim. The people of the city that may use the subway are a victim, but less so than if the subway was made less hospitable for everyone without improving the situation of the homeless in the city.
All it would take for the homeless to stop being homeless is for the cops to stop throwing homeless people out of buildings that haven’t been used for a year. Homeless people are constantly doing their best to stop being homeless, and the state and other people keep violently attacking them to make them homeless again.
Meanwhile all it would take for the subway organisation is to do its job of making the subway a nice place to be. If that makes it the nicest place homeless don’t get attacked by cops, that’s not the subway organisation’s fault.
i think that the millions of vacant homes should house the homeless, but since thats seemingly impossible then sure I’d rather they keep the benches for the homeless to lay on than this
You think offering benches to sit on qualifies as housing the homeless?
No, I was being a bit facetious in my response to the comment that the solution is housing the homeless, not making things less hospitable. It’s of course not within the Subway’s powers to actually solve homelessness so giving them flack for picking the less worse option with their limited options instead of magically solving the root of the problem is silly.
Get mad at the people who are actually responsible for dealing with the root cause, not the ones needing to make tough choices dealing with the reality of it.
yes :)