[galimalint]

In that case, why not move all the homeless from a park in a metropolis to a park in a cheaper/remote area? Then you can actually employ cheaper custodians in those areas to look after these homeless.

[anadem]

It's a lot hard to re-enter society if you're separated from everyone and everyplace you know. Sure, it could be cheaper in some ways to ship the homeless out to bumfuck nowhere, but might be less cost-effective than you think, and certainly less humane.

[ty6853]

If drugs are strongly intertwined I wonder if an opportunity to voluntarily seperate from familiar drug triggers and sources might provide some balancing to the downsides.

[aprilthird2021]

Yes it is harder, but it's also harder for society to offer you the services like free room and board, help getting a job, and the thousand other services we offer in a high cost of living area.

Since society is taking up the bulk of the work in helping you re-enter, you have to make some compromises, and potentially moving to a new place seems like a reasonable one to make. If we want a robust and strong social safety net, we cannot commit to providing all these services in the most expensive place to do so.

[drjasonharrison]

Park Ranges and Social Services Workers are much cheaper than Police, Paramedics, and Emergency Room Staff.

Your reductive suggestion could be implemented by busing the homeless to prisons. That's probably not what you were proposing, but it's one interpretation.

[OgsyedIE]

Then they'll have much further distances to commute on foot to their jobs.

[WillPostForFood]

If they could have a job they wouldn't be homeless.

[ggm]

See, thats why I don't like the reductive reasoning. After all, when you're moving them why bother with seat belts and comfy chairs? Just use a flatbed truck and they can hold their pathetic possessions on with string, if they have any. And you also neatly assume the resources in the remote location can cope with the burden rather than already being behind the cost curve, compared to rangers in the SF metro area with direct access to the agencies.

Wait a minute, isn't this why it "paid" for the Texan and Floridan governors to ship their problems to the sanctuary cities?

[galimalint]

you might have misunderstood; if the homeless is now in a cheaper COL park, then more park custodians can be hired to take care of the homeless. And why should we assume that SF metro agencies are more apt to take care of these downtrodden than small town Nevada City? They haven't exactly done a stellar job so far for decades.