There are a ton of articles on it. The system is huge and has been around for decades. Look it up if you like. If you don’t care, don’t.

No one said it was good at all. It’s a necessary service in a big city. Obviously some shelters are very different from others. None of them are at nice hotels, but you can get your own room and a place for some of your stuff.

The major complaints are usually “it’s too small” or “they don’t let me have pets”. Guess what? There are actual apartments people pay for that are too small and don’t allow pets. It’s NYC.

I’m talking about reality in this century. You’re quoting an 1800s writer from another country. The system is a complicated solution to a complicated problem. So there’s not going to be any simple answer, and definitely not from online quotes.

This doesn’t apply because the law doesn’t forbid anyone from sleeping under bridges. Also, you can get housing for free. That’s my point. It’s the opposite of that quote. Unless you’re pro-theft or something.

Exactly. These are necessary rules for a large city. No one can camp without a permit because then parks would be unusable. The same permit is for weddings, parties, whatever. It’s pretty easy to get one for a few hours, but they will reject it if you ask to use the park every day and night.

People living outside in public parks and on streets is a really bad use of urban space. It takes public space and makes it private. That’s why the city gives out free room in old hotels and shelters. It’s a good thing people can’t sleep wherever.

Technically it’s not illegal to sleep on the street, but there are sanitation rules regarding it. NYC has 8 million people. Any problem you can think of is magnified. It’s literally a sanitary issue if you allow thousands of people to camp outside.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/nyregion/nyc-homeless-camp-bill-of-rights.html

In New York City, there are many rules on the books that have been used to restrict sleeping rough.

One is a piece of sanitation code that makes it unlawful to leave “any box, barrel, bale or merchandise or other movable property” or to erect “any shed, building or other obstruction” on “any public place.”

In city parks, it is illegal to “engage in camping, or erect or maintain a tent, shelter or camp” without a permit, or to be in a park at all between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. unless posted rules state otherwise.

And on the property of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, both underground and in outdoor elevated subway stations, it is a form of banned disorderly conduct to “sleep or doze” in any manner that “may interfere” with the comfort of passengers. Nor may subway riders “lie down or place feet on the seat of a train, bus or platform bench or occupy more than one seat” or “place bags or personal items on seats” in ways that “impede the comfort of other passengers.”

Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don’t get in the way.

someone who did not violate any of those rules — say, someone who set a sleeping bag in an out-of-the-way spot under a highway overpass and did not put up any kind of shelter — was legally in the clear, at least in theory.

Yes. They should do it like NYC, where it’s basically illegal to live on the street. The city is required by law to offer free housing at a certain quality level for anyone who needs it. It’s not amazing but you get a door that locks and a security team, plus a bathroom.

If you don’t want to sleep inside, you literally have to leave the city. It’s not cheap but it works much better than letting people live in tents.

Also, they quote $10k for “supportive housing” and show a picture of San Francisco. I guarantee that’s not accurate. The state needs to pay to house these people, but we need to be realistic about the cost.

Many places on Earth are hurricane proof. They’re mostly in the South Pacific where the US military built most of the infrastructure.

Have you ever heard of Guam being fucked up by a hurricane? No, because all the buildings are concrete blocks. They just close the storm shutters. Here’s a Cat 4 that directly hit the island with no deaths and no significant injuries:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/weather/guam-typhoon-mawar-damage-thursday/index.html

The indigenous people are the shareholders, so no it isn’t.