Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way"

I think that's a reasonable take.

I don't think that living in a public park is a valid lifestyle choice. Those places can't serve their purpose as public areas for recreation if they are also someone's home. I understand that people do it now because they are desperate. We should provide them with better options. Or at least acceptable options that allow the rest of the citizens of the city to also live their lives.

I am not opposed to dedicated property or areas for tent living, but it can't be in existing parks or other public spaces like sidewalks and transit facilities. And there have to be amenities such as showers, bathrooms and trash service. Essentially a state campground in the city.




I don't think mandating what's valid and not valid on public areas is valid. How is "recreation" any more valid than "sleeping"?


That’s disingenuous.

I’m not opposed to sleeping in parks. Like, sure, take a nap. But no, you can’t live there.

Take a look at the homeless camps in Seattle parks and greenbelts. That’s not staying out of anyone’s way. There’s nothing harmonious about it.

Basic services are mandatory in camping areas. Without bathrooms we get human waste accumulation and runoff. Without trash service we get fires. This isn’t hypothetical. Go look around Seattle.

Dictating what is done with public spaces is absolutely valid. That is how civilization works. It’s why we even have public spaces.

Without rules on what’s allowed in parks they’d be developed into something else.


>But no, you can’t live there.

What do you think gives you the right to make that call?


Democracy.


Is that when the majority decides for everyone?




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: