Artless

Hey. They used some pretty cool graphics and illustrations for this article.

I kid of course. You make a very valid criticism against them and I'd like to quote my original comment, in my defense . . .

On a first glance, logical basis, the idea seems to make some sense. After all, I can imagine it would be easier for 10 cities to worry about 500 homeless people a piece than for one city to worry about 5,000 homeless by themselves. Also, comparing the cost of taking care of a homeless person against a one way bus ticket also stands out quite a bit.

I will say, that the article does give me the impression that busing seems to be a brute force solution to an issue that I personally perceive as very nuanced and sensitive. I will also say that my perception that these cities aren't too invested in following up with people reinforces that notion. As heavy handed and one sided as the article is (and I felt that way when I first read it, which is why I didn't share it on Hubski) I do think there really might be an issue with data collection, because I'd like to trust that a reporting agency would share the data given them by organizations, and if The Guardian says repeatedly "there's not much data" I'm inclined to think there's not much data.

The Guardian has given you the impression that this program is a problem. That this is a policy of heartlessness and inhumanity.

In my defense, I don't think that this is a policy of heartlessness and inhumanity. I know four people who are social workers and while none of them work with the homeless, they all care deeply about their jobs and the people they help. I can expect that social workers who do work with the homeless care just as deeply. Prior to this article I have wondered whether or not busing is an "easy way out" situation. I honestly don't know, but I can say that it'll probably be something that I wonder about for a while.