You have to do more work to explain why being from a certain county makes a person deserve the public resources from only that county. You assume the connection here with no explanation-
“It’s reasonable, therefore, to ask whether the people living on the streets of a city are actually from that place—whether they actually have claim to the limited set of public resources (always provided less efficiently than market products) the city makes available to those in need.”
Cities and counties get a lot of money from the federal government, and counties get money by taxing businesses who have customers all over the country. This is particularly true in places like New York, LA, San Francisco. Maybe a person grew up in some suburb in the Midwest. The community they grew up in pays money to the federal government, and the people who live there buy products and services from companies headquartered in major cities. So why shouldn’t social insurance paid for by federal taxes and local taxes on national revenues go to that person wherever they pick up the service in the US?
The US isn’t Europe, or Ancient Greece. This is one country, every citizen is “from” every part of the country.
Wouldn't it be simpler, and better for everyone, to give the federal or state governments a bigger hand in managing the problem?
The agencies that provide supportive services should operate at a higher level, under a mandate to prevent local concentrations of the chronically homeless and disorderly. Beyond the tensions referenced in the article, they depress local commerce and threaten to kill the proverbial golden goose.
isnt this essentially an argument for replacing local services for homeless people with federally managed services accessible anywhere? the situation you describe seems to be a classic collective-action problem
You have to do more work to explain why being from a certain county makes a person deserve the public resources from only that county. You assume the connection here with no explanation-
“It’s reasonable, therefore, to ask whether the people living on the streets of a city are actually from that place—whether they actually have claim to the limited set of public resources (always provided less efficiently than market products) the city makes available to those in need.”
Cities and counties get a lot of money from the federal government, and counties get money by taxing businesses who have customers all over the country. This is particularly true in places like New York, LA, San Francisco. Maybe a person grew up in some suburb in the Midwest. The community they grew up in pays money to the federal government, and the people who live there buy products and services from companies headquartered in major cities. So why shouldn’t social insurance paid for by federal taxes and local taxes on national revenues go to that person wherever they pick up the service in the US?
The US isn’t Europe, or Ancient Greece. This is one country, every citizen is “from” every part of the country.
Wouldn't it be simpler, and better for everyone, to give the federal or state governments a bigger hand in managing the problem?
The agencies that provide supportive services should operate at a higher level, under a mandate to prevent local concentrations of the chronically homeless and disorderly. Beyond the tensions referenced in the article, they depress local commerce and threaten to kill the proverbial golden goose.
isnt this essentially an argument for replacing local services for homeless people with federally managed services accessible anywhere? the situation you describe seems to be a classic collective-action problem
Something similar is true in the Boston region. After Boston and Cambridge banned rent encampments, unsheltered homeless went to Somerville.
Often these folks are from all over the region, so expecting a single city to shoulder all the costs and burdens isn't reasonable
Something similar is true in the Boston region. After Boston and Cambridge banned rent encampments, unsheltered homeless went to Somerville.
Often these folks are from all over the region, so expecting a single city to shoulder all the costs and burdens isn't reasonable
How much of LA’s housed population is from somewhere else?