Submitted by [deleted] t3_y214hb in providence
[deleted]
Comments
PieDesperate5653 t1_is87j78 wrote
Housing should outright by Ike paths. That's all I'm trying to say.
big_whistler t1_is0ahbx wrote
Its easy to say “fix homelessness” but its not such a simple problem. This isn’t just a Rhode Island thing either, the west coast has way more homelessness.
Not sure individual states can fix what is essentially a product of capitalism.
revertothemiddle t1_is0dr1g wrote
There are plenty of homeless people in non-capitalist places. I grew up in a communist country and homelessness there was far worse. But I hear your point about how intractable the problem is and how states have few good options. Is there a place that has a good handle on the problem? Maybe we can learn from them.
dgroach27 t1_is0k6ce wrote
Denmark. Capitalism is not designed to help the houseless
dionidium t1_is0qvm8 wrote
> “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.
-- Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen
Denmark is a market economy with high marginal tax rates that plows the unmatchable productivity gains experienced under capitalism into social programs. That's what's called "social democracy" or "democratic socialism" in some circles, but it is in no useful sense, "not capitalist." It's a market economy.
dgroach27 t1_is0s9ic wrote
I can understand how you thought that I was saying Denmark wasn't capitalist, that was not my intention. I was stating Denmark handles houseless people well. Then separately I was stating that capitalism is not designed to deal with houselessness.
dionidium t1_is0suqi wrote
Thanks for clarifying. :)
dgroach27 t1_is0ujin wrote
With that said, the things that Denmark does to help its houseless population are not very capitalist.
dionidium t1_is0wunp wrote
There is unfortunately a lot of confusion about these words. People use the term Socialism to mean "the existence of social programs paid for with taxes" and they also use the term Socialism to mean "a planned economy." This means in practice that "socialism" isn't always the opposite of "capitalism."
Some examples:
- When the government pays for your health care that can be "socialism," but it's not anti-capitalist.
- When the government makes it illegal to own private property that can be "socialism" and it is more or less anti-capitalist.
- When the government raises your taxes to spend more on welfare programs that can be "socialism," but it's not necessarily anti-capitalist.
- When the government makes it illegal to make a profit selling widgets that can be "socialism," and it's explicitly anti-capitalist.
When people say they want to "capitalism is the problem" often what they are really thinking is that the government should provision more services. What they want is universal healthcare or increased spending on other social programs. But that's not in any sense anti-capitalist. That's just taxing economic activity to pay for the social programs you want.
That's what Denmark does.
They are a capitalist country with high taxes that spends a lot on social programs. Some people call that increased spending "socialism," but crucially they still allow markets. You can still be a capitalist in Denmark. Most people there work for private corporations/businesses. Etc, etc.
Some people insist that restricting free markets isn't Socialism, it's Communism, and such people get very upset if you don't use the correct term. But the point is that there is not widespread agreement about how to use these terms and, further, people deliberately deploy these terms in ways that advance their political goals (whether pro- or anti-socialism/capitalism), so it's important always to be clear about what you're saying.
dgroach27 t1_is12mig wrote
>When the government pays for your health care
That is removing consumers from the private healthcare economy while not maximizing profit. Not very capitalist.
>When the government makes it illegal to own private property
Not socialism.
>When the government raises your taxes to spend more on welfare programs
Higher taxes means less money to spend in the capitalist market and welfare programs allow people to get services that aren't being maximized for profit. Not very capitalist.
>When people say they want to "capitalism is the problem" often what they are really thinking is that the government should provision more services. What they want is universal healthcare or increased spending on other social programs. But that's not in any sense anti-capitalist. That's just taxing economic activity to pay for the social programs you want.
People are wanting universal healthcare because due to the capitalist market abusing consumers with insane prices. They know people need insurance so they know they can get away with charging what they do for it. Classic example of capitalism being the problem.
Having workers have more control over the means of production is what, at its most simplest, what socialism is.
[deleted] OP t1_is17qk1 wrote
[removed]
Kelruss t1_is16tgx wrote
Here's the thing, we have fixed homelessness in the US before. The sort of homelessness we see today is the result of two policies: the elimination of public spending on public housing, and deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. Both of these were done for (some) good reasons; conditions in both could be horrendous, and mental institutions were absolutely horrid. But they were also done for ideological reasons, and the resources to house people in their communities were never provided. Public spending just stopped, and local and state governments were left to jury-rig solutions.
The other aspect is that the State of RI has literally developed a plan to end homelessness. Everyone in the system absolutely knows how to end homelessness, what's required is political will to procure the funding to do it. It's not a question of capitalism, it's a question of action.
dionidium t1_is0qioq wrote
> Not sure individual states can fix what is essentially a product of capitalism.
There's "capitalism" all around the world and differing rates of homelessness.
There's been capitalism in the United States for 200+ years and for most of those years there were fewer regulations and safety nets than there are today, and yet homelessness is increasing, not decreasing.
In most of our country's history we built a lot more housing than we do today and that was during times when "capitalism" was more or less unfettered. Today, the primary barrier to building more housing is regulatory. Exclusionary zoning laws prevent the construction of new apartment buildings. That's literally the opposite of "capitalism." That's the state preventing housing.
You can't lay everything at the feet of capitalism.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is0y176 wrote
You don't think local contractors and landlords will lobby our regulators to keep housing supply low so they can inflate housing prices? Capitalism is all around the world but we are one of the few Capitalist countries where every facet of our government has been seized by capital interests.
dionidium t1_is0zf08 wrote
If you could flip a switch and tomorrow we became a fully communist country with no private property where nobody owned their own home and nobody could profit financially from land, do you really think people would suddenly be just fine with a whole bunch of new buildings in their neighborhood? Of course not! Even in that communist utopia local residents are going to oppose a bunch of new apartment buildings in their neighborhood and they're going to oppose it for all the same reasons people oppose it today, which is just to say it's not primarily a "capitalist" position.
That's not to say that there aren't people who oppose supply for purely capitalist motivations, but for every landlord and developer there are 100 ordinary Americans who don't want to see changes in their neighborhood for reasons that have nothing to do with "capitalism."
People who live in suburbs today aren’t going to shrug their shoulders and say, “well, I guess I have absolutely no reason to oppose the densification of my neighborhood now that the profit motive has been removed.” Get real! They have tons of other reasons.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is11fv8 wrote
No you cannot flip a switch to communism lmao. You would need a transitory stage of socialism in order to reach communism without total catastrophe.
"Local residents will oppose a bunch of new apartment buildings." Why in the world would they do that if the state regulated the supply and pricing of those apartments? How does building new apartments affect someone whose life doesn't revolve around property value? I think any rational person would want a society where affordable housing is plentiful. You're only able to imagine what an American would think if new property encroached on their networth and you believe this to be true for all societies lmao.
[deleted] OP t1_is14c48 wrote
[deleted]
dionidium t1_is16s22 wrote
Yes, I don't know if people maybe have the impression that I'm defending the opinions of homeowners, but I am not. I am an urbanist. I like living in cities and I would like to see a lot more building around me.
But most people are not me! Most people oppose new construction in their neighborhood and the notion that the only reason they do this is the "profit motive" is the opinion of someone who has never been to a community meeting. It boggles the mind, actually. It's a completely absurd proposition. People don't want density around them and they don't want noise and they don't want traffic and they don't want crime and they associate all this stuff with cities. It's just totally absurd to say that it's entirely the "profit motive."
The people who live in suburbs aren’t going to be like, “well I guess now I have no reason not to allow a bunch of new housing in my neighborhood” if you take away the profit motive. Get real!
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is17dyx wrote
Yeah I guess I don't understand the "I paid this money to be isolated" mentality which often naturally coincides with the "I can't stand seeing homeless people everywhere!!" mentality. If you don't want homeless, provide more affordable housing lmao.
dionidium t1_is18r5z wrote
Newsflash: people are selfish and irrational. And selfishness is just as likely to take the form of, “I don’t want a bunch of people living around me” as it is “I want to make a profit on my home.”
dionidium t1_is15qp6 wrote
> How does building new apartments affect someone whose life doesn't revolve around property value? I think any rational person would want a society where affordable housing is plentiful.
If you don't know the answers to these questions, then I'm not sure what I can do for you. People don't only oppose construction in their neighborhood because of "property values." "Property values" is a proxy for all kinds of things that make a neighborhood more or less desirable and people care also about all those things.
Again, I think this isn't merely true, it's extraordinarily obvious, so I'm not sure what I could say to someone who doesn't believe it.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is16rh5 wrote
I guess I've lived in countries where entire communities live next to each other in mega high rises vs the US where people want to live isolated. In Singapore for example the government strictly regulates housing ratios based on ethnicity to ensure everyone lives next to everyone else. They try to minimize the "I'm not living here bc the <insert minorities> are moving in next to me" attitude like you find in the US.
dionidium t1_is178e6 wrote
I feel like we're talking across each other here. Of course the government could literally mandate desegregation and the government could literally force people to allow a bunch of new construction in their neighborhood. Of course that's something that could happen.
The point is that at this exact moment in time the vast majority of Americans oppose that and they don't oppose it only because of the "profit motive." They oppose it because they fear crime, because they don't want more traffic or noise in their neighborhood, maybe because some of them are racist. They have lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of reasons to oppose it that have nothing to do with capitalism. Not all of those reasons are good. It's just that a lot of them have nothing to do with capitalism.
So, I'm sorry, but it's just extremely naive and unserious to say that it's all about capitalism.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is2p48g wrote
I'd agree if the attitudes and personal feelings of Americans in general weren't completely shaped first by nascent capitalism a la chattel slavery and then afterwards by unfettered and unregulated hyper capitalism lol. Peoples attitudes in this country are inextricably linked to Capitalism bc Capitalism has been allowed to seize and commodify every single facet of society. Americans have never lived to experience any other system.
Greed, selfishness, and entitlement are behaviors enhanced and rewarded in Capitalist countries. To say that one has nothing to do with the other is real naivety imo.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_is16bt0 wrote
I'd agree the supply issue is a huge, huge part of the problem but I do think it's a very fair statement that capitalism was a driving factor in eroding so many of the safety nets, particularly in mental health that lead to the homeless population more than tripling during the Reagan years. And I also think that the "bottom-line" thinking that's the lifeblood of capitalism is a big roadblock towards more comprehensive solutions.
I'd never be someone who'd argue for full on communism or anything but it's hard to pretend that this problem exists because our status quo lets it.
FunLife64 t1_is0qzb6 wrote
I’m not sure “capitalism” is the fault. There’s no shortage of jobs (and decent paying service jobs).
This is more likely a mental health and/or rehab issue.
total_life_forever t1_is11x2c wrote
Many of those people cannot get the care they need because healthcare is inaccessible because it is commodified because of capitalism.
Additionally, the number of homeless folks is going to increase this season with the cost of heat/utilities going up because of political/lobbying efforts of moneyed interest (again, capitalism). People will become homeless because they cannot afford the increased rate because they work for employers who are incentivized, and enabled, to depress the employees' wages (again, capitalism).
FunLife64 t1_is1cswh wrote
I mean what is the solution here for the US? Flip a switch to turn over control of utilities, housing, health care, etc to solve homelessness? That’s not a practical answer.
There’s better support services that can be provided for the homeless and needy by the government. And there’s examples of this. If they are better supported it will give them an opportunity to maintain jobs that do exist.
[deleted] OP t1_is1bux4 wrote
[removed]
total_life_forever t1_is1rhz1 wrote
Taking something people desperately need to survive and making it unaffordable because of profit motive is capitalism. It is a decision made in the furtherance of capital to the detriment of social need.
[deleted] OP t1_is1rtmb wrote
[removed]
total_life_forever t1_is1sx9d wrote
Rate changes are subject to regulatory approval. Nothing to do with previous compassion, everything to do with regulatory capture (a key feature of capitalism).
[deleted] OP t1_is1tg7j wrote
[removed]
BlushesandGushes t1_is152ju wrote
Absolutely agree, capitalism doesn't attempt to solve for drug and mental health issues.
FunLife64 t1_is1c6zs wrote
There are plenty of capitalist countries that have much stronger support in these areas. There’s no direct correlation.
riotous_jocundity t1_is15b2p wrote
There is a serious shortage of affordable housing that has only worsened over the last two years. 30% of the single-family home stock in this country has been bought up by corporations. There are going to be far more unhoused people in the coming years unless we start regulating this.
FunLife64 t1_is1c1ln wrote
Yes, housing is an issue. These people living in tents are not simply working 60 hour weeks and just can’t find a place to live — there’s other significant factors at play in most cases.
Jtownusa t1_is21mf0 wrote
This is glaringly obvious but you will get downvoted for it. I'd wager close to 100% of the homeless population in RI (and in most States) are mentally ill, drug addicted or both. That's WHY they're homeless in the first place not because rents are too high. People love to pretend that's not the case (I'm truly baffled by why that is) and that if you just gave these folks free housing the problem would be solved. However, this has been attempted before with hotels in California. The results were predictably disastrous: overdoses, destroyed property, unsanitary conditions, etc. This is primarily a mental health/drug addiction issue.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_is20v70 wrote
Job openings now aren't exactly easily available to every homeless person. You still need access to shelter, clean clothing, bathing facilities, an address to put on applications, a reliable contact method.
And, even then, the jobs available still need to be able to pay for living expenses to be able to climb out of that situation. It's not just a matter of there being an underlying reason or laziness explaining why people are in that situation
FunLife64 t1_is28gql wrote
I 100% never said they were “lazy”. Just to be clear.
I just am stating the homelessness in RI is caused by issues not related to jobs. If you have them all shelter, clothing, etc. they wouldn’t magically be on their feet with good jobs. There’s underlying issues like mental illness and drug addiction that are preventing many from getting on their feet.
unidumper t1_is11hj1 wrote
Lmao..yeah them commy utopias.
dionidium t1_is0pd81 wrote
- Fewer bike lanes
- ??????
- Homelessness solved!
Kelruss t1_is0s8b5 wrote
Emergency shelter money is limited, and given conditions in shelters, many folks prefer to be outdoors during the warm summer months where they can be comfortable and relatively undisturbed. Why swelter in Harrington Hall with 100 other guys undergoing their own traumas, far from anything else in the state, only to be kicked out at 7 am when you can sleep in a tent with your girlfriend and your dog in a place that’s convenient to you at a time you like?
The shelters understand this as well (it’s also not easy to find good people to staff shelters). And to some extent, the government understands this, so they only release winter shelter money when things get dire (although many advocates will point out this is far too late most years).
Okay, that’s shelters. Why does government not fix the problem of homelessness? Two reasons. First, policymakers are housed while the homeless are notably not. There is a huge power differential here. If you are fighting for your literal survival everyday, you know what you don’t do? Vote. If your address changes repeatedly (though I’ll note “under the X bridge in Y town” is a valid home address for voting in RI, IIRC), then it’s hard to figure out where you should vote, and you may not waste precious data on your phone to look it up. Meanwhile, housed people generally vote much more reliably, and are generally more likely to support policies that criminalize homelessness (like banning panhandling) than solve it (building housing). Indeed, they often mobilize to stop the latter.
You might be surprised to know that >10 years ago the State created a 10-year plan to end homelessness. Guess what? No political support for enacting it.
Second, the whole “homeless system” is fragmented between a bunch of charities, which the government relies on to do the actual work. The State of RI basically acts as a source of funding for many of these charities. But they’re one of many such sources.
These charities are mixed. Some are pretty good, some are awful. There’s a few dozen of them, mostly regionally based. Some of them are genuinely threatened by the idea that we should end homelessness; after all, that’s how they get all of their money. These are the ones that refused to move to the national “Housing First” model until it became clear that all the money out there was demanding they do so.
Such a fragmented system filled with disinterested politicians creates the conditions for this. The myth that homelessness is hard to solve (it’s not, it requires housing: it’s right there in the word “home-less”) is also useful cover. Dishing out a few hundred thousand to charities allows politicians to say they’re “working on it” when they’re not spending the tens of millions required to truly end homelessness in RI.
Finally a word on bike lanes. Housing policy is mostly set by the State, cities could do more for it (housing authorities, zoning reform, etc.), but it’s not their prerogative, as it’s a statewide system. Bike lanes, however, are a municipal issue, since they generally run down municipally-owned streets. Spending money on bike lanes doesn’t preclude spending on housing, any more than sending an officer to arrest someone for panhandling does (a complete waste of resources, since panhandling is protected speech under the First Amendment). Also, many homeless people are also bike riders, so making cycling safer isn’t exactly a problem for them.
cometpants t1_is2euem wrote
This is SO helpful!!! Thank you!
Blackulor t1_is1yzpj wrote
Well done! A thoughtful and helpful response. I Thank you heartily! I would also like to add that capitalism is a canker upon the earth and should be rooted out and destroyed. Also profit and chattel employment. How we care for the less fortunate should be the barometer by which we judge ourselves.
canibringmydog t1_is0dj6b wrote
I agree. We spend more money on antihomeless architecture than trying to address the problems that force people into homelessness.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_is0gfxj wrote
Unless bike lanes do what?
canibringmydog t1_is0h8r9 wrote
I’m sure they meant “and less bike paths”
Proof-Variation7005 t1_is0jb4y wrote
UNLESS bike lanes are holding onto the solution and they’re just not sharing it. Damn it. Believe in something.
canibringmydog t1_is0jopy wrote
They would. Sneaky bastards.
CthulhuAlmighty t1_is0fcm0 wrote
I work in Providence and take walks around the city regularly.
The homeless issue in Providence is minimal compared to the homeless issue in other cities. In the last few months I’ve been to New Orleans, Baltimore, and Washington DC. The homeless situation there is far worse than what we have in Providence.
Yes, it’s still an issue and people shouldn’t be homeless. It’s not an easy fix. But did you know that Rhode Island was the first state to pass a Homeless Bill of Rights?
As we improve conditions for the homeless in Rhode Island, we keep getting more homeless bussed here from other cities and states.
https://www.golocalprov.com/news/is-nyc-shipping-its-homeless-a-big-deal-some-ri-mayors-think-so
[deleted] OP t1_is1dgkl wrote
[removed]
CarniverousApple t1_is1wjv0 wrote
Does OP understand that Transportation and Housing are completely different budgets?
BradleyVan t1_is0difc wrote
There are now people tenting on the bike path on the linear bridge from prov to east prov.
acmemetalworks t1_is0gd6y wrote
There were homeless here and there on the bike path a couple of years ago, with the most off in the woods near the base of the stuck-up railroad bridge, but others near the Woonasquatucker greenway on occasion.
Come to think of it they were set up under the bridge near the stairway going up to the area you're talking about a few years back too.
bigbadape t1_is0hwgt wrote
Since when? Have not seen this and run there most weeks. Not disagreeing just wondering if it is a very recent event.
BradleyVan t1_is2khmm wrote
I have see tents in the morning, on the actual bike path near the benches in the center. You have to go around, the tent takes up the right lane. I have seen it Since last thursday, saw again yesterday. Same tent. The tent is gone by the time I ride home in the afternoon.
Seasnek t1_is0c3a6 wrote
https://www.instagram.com/p/CjWx3hLMKqR/?igshid=NmNmNjAwNzg=
Submit your testimony to city council to say no to tax breaks for the Superman building!
Proof-Variation7005 t1_is17ume wrote
I get the resistance to subsidizing any developer but the shortage of housing supply overall, I believe the phrase "beggars can't be choosers" is very fitting here. The city/state needs to increase the housing stock dramatically. We're better off with the Superman building, Fane tower and that South Water development existing.
And it's baffling and infuriating that D.A.R.E. won't or can't see that, though this feels more like the principled progressivism viewpoint where people will argue against any good thing because it's not the full and complete solution to every aspect of the problem.
Seasnek t1_is388eg wrote
The thing is we need new Affordable housing. All the housing that gets built is luxury housing, then it pushes out all the people who can’t afford to live in the area. (Worker shortages already happening) literally, all these luxury housing are being built and are empty. They are not a good thing, they are not benefiting anyone.
Dry_Faithlessness135 t1_is0qa6t wrote
Seriously … this is a much larger issue than people who hate bike lanes and want to use that as some sort of abstract issue that takes away from taking care of the unhoused in the state.
NinjaSant4 t1_is0xqc1 wrote
People complain even more about solutions for the homeless (like building more housing, or even tiny house style camps) than they do the bike lines.
I'm pretty sure the solutions have been proposed MANY times but the state continues to rely almost entirely on charities to do the actual work. The government isn't ignorant - it's lazy. They think clearing out a homeless camp is all you need to do to remove the problem, because all they hear about is how bad the camp looks.
tads73 t1_is10z9c wrote
They don't take care of things and people. Leaders are corrupt and conservative on housing.
cofonseca t1_is20mkk wrote
Because they don't care.
frauenarzZzt t1_is5pye4 wrote
Rhode Island just doesn't have the kind of ethical and scandal-free leadership they had since Big Lincoln Chafee left office.
unidumper t1_is10xx6 wrote
If you fix a problem you can't throw money at it every fiscal year...
PieDesperate5653 t1_is1w418 wrote
Right. It is so stupid to wait until the problem is "there"to fix it. We have all summer to help the homeless and yet we come across the same problem every winter, they do not have anywhere to go in winter.
. I read that Crossroads just opened up a new building and it's getting ready to revamp the old building into apartments. It just breaks my heart especially when it's a family.
I also feel we need a new version of a nursing home for the chronically homeless who cannot take care of themselves. But at last! That would make way too much sense.
Or better yet. Why not add shelter rooms in public spaces such as libraries, mental health facilities, churches and so on. I'm not talking about just cots and warm blankets. I mean actual rooms.
That's all there is to it I'm going to run for the government in Rhode Island! LOL scratch that
unidumper t1_is1yy3r wrote
What I ment was there is no desire to fix it . Summer fall or winter. Besides its more complex than just a room to live in. Most homeless have drug /mental issues . Some are homeless by choice. They don't want a place or responsibility required for it.
Previous_Floor t1_is0t2qt wrote
The bike path cheerleaders on here are out of control.
frowogger t1_is1hu1x wrote
Have you ever considered that cities are a nuanced social environment that should simultaneously provide for people who use bikes along with providing for homeless people?
[deleted] OP t1_is1qdaj wrote
[deleted]
Previous_Floor t1_is1jfuz wrote
People can ride bikes without a bike path that will destroy local businesses.
Are you aware that 4 people stabbed a homeless man in Kennedy Plaza last night? And do you know why they stabbed him? Because the homeless man refused to let them take his Sour Patch Kids candy.
There are real issues in this city. Not having a bike path on Hope Street isn't one of them.
frowogger t1_is1rfue wrote
Sorry, a bike path that will...destroy local businesses? You mean having a convenient, healthy, and easy way for more people to travel through areas with lots of businesses is detrimental towards said local businesses? What a joke. And sure, keep going on about how we can't address 2 issues simultaneously. You have the comprehension of social issues of a 1st grader.
Previous_Floor t1_is2vd22 wrote
>Sorry, a bike path that will...destroy local businesses? You mean having a convenient, healthy, and easy way for more people to travel through areas with lots of businesses is detrimental towards said local businesses? What a joke.
I mean LOSING 132 PARKING SPACES near the local businesses. You know, the part that you conveniently left out.
frowogger t1_is45i2y wrote
Boo hoo I don't give a shit about parking spaces. Bike path is infinitely healthier for the city and more sustainable. Cars do jack shit to support the city as a social space. They're geometrically inefficient, take up tons of fucking space (Notice how you didn't mention how hundreds of parking spaces take up tons of square footage that could be used for literally anything more important?), are alienating as hell, and as the infrastructure grows to support more cars, it supports less people. Bike paths are the exact opposite of this. They're a massively social activity, is much cheaper to get into, is inherently healthy for the individual, takes up far less space than giant fucking cars, and, yknow, can't have high speed collisions or threaten high speed collisions against normal ass people walking around the city. Fuck cars
Previous_Floor t1_is4zua8 wrote
We're talking about a one mile stretch of Hope Street. What would the people on bikes do before they get to the beginning of the bike path? What would they do when they reach the end? I'll tell you what they'd do: they'd manage just fine. And they'll manage just fine without that one mile stretch.
But it's all irrelevant at this point. This was just a temporary test. That bike path won't be back. Sensible people won't let it happen.
Jtownusa t1_is22jc4 wrote
Lol why are you conflating a homeless guy getting stabbed with the bike path on Hope street? They have nothing to do with one another.
dc_dobbz t1_is0kki2 wrote
I would point out that, in terms of the budget, bike lanes and housing have nothing to do with each other. If you’re directing funds away from anything it’s travel lanes for cars, not public housing or shelters.