

Pay rent or get a permit? SF bureaucracy scuffs dream of homeless shoe shiner - jbarciauskas
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/04/MNJQ1807UK.DTL

======
jerf
This is the purpose of a great deal of regulation, simply raising the cost of
some transaction to benefit those who have already cleared the bar. In this
case, it is particularly clear to see because the person being held down has
virtually no resources at all, but it is merely a difference of scale, not
kind, to many other such endless regulations.

All regulations have social costs. It should be a routine question "What will
the costs be?", "Who will bear them?", and " _Is it worth it?_ ", but the
questions are so rarely asked. No matter how small the cost, it can be the
difference between success and failure for somebody. A full economic
accounting often shows the costs aren't worth it because of second order
effects (which would be beyond the scope of a HN post, but for example, once
the gate has been set up, those on the right side of the gate can artificially
charge more, often negating the value to society of the regulation).

If you don't like this result, think twice next time you feel tempted to
suggest that the answer to some problem is regulation. Maybe it is. But if you
don't know what the costs are, and you haven't thought about how people will
change their behavior after you've put your regulation in place, you haven't
got it all worked out yet.

~~~
msie
_This is the purpose of a great deal of regulation, simply raising the cost of
some transaction to benefit those who have already cleared the bar._

This is a serious charge you are making. Is it really the purpose or rather,
an unintended consequence?

~~~
req2
<http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/silly-consensus.html>

------
uuilly
The other day I saw two SF cruisers pulled over busting a guy selling
strawberries on the corner. I constantly walk past human shit, used needles
and the broken glass of car windows and they're arresting a guy who's doing
something useful?

~~~
zackattack
Get organized, make a difference.

~~~
northwind
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/05/...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/05/MNVJ1817N1.DTL)

By the sound of it, they already have...

Or, at least the people have begun voting with their feet (no pun intended).

~~~
ankhmoop
A comment I noticed from the follow-up article:

 _Nice story Chron. Do a story like this every day and you'll have peple [sic]
lining up to buy your newspaper too._

Newspapers have the power to serve the local interest, if they would just
accept the responsibility and effort necessary to do so.

------
brianr
I see this guy every morning on my way in to work. Had no idea he was
homeless. Pretty impressive and inspiring story.

------
Empact
An enterprising individual, requiring the consent of the shoe shiner in order
to collaborate, might offer an investment.

The government, able to force its demands, seizes a tax.

------
tptacek
What's the argument that resolves the common-sense problem this guy has while
maintaining the city's reasonable interest in making sure that con artists,
unsafe food vendors, and public nuisances can be kept off the streets? Because
I don't think this is a uniquely SF problem.

~~~
jibiki
> What's the argument that resolves the common-sense problem this guy has
> while maintaining the city's reasonable interest in making sure that con
> artists, unsafe food vendors, and public nuisances can be kept off the
> streets?

I hate to say it, but selective application of the law looks like the only
way. (See also, teenage girls getting prosecuted under child pornography law
for sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends.) Bureaucrats,
police officers and state's attorneys all have to make judgment calls in
situations like this. There's no legislative solution that perfectly
corresponds to our intuitions of right and wrong.

~~~
tptacek
They could make the permits free to people that do less than $N in revenue,
which would still leave them with the ability to revoke permits from people
who abuse them.

~~~
raquo
There are always two ways in such situations - make perfect law or apply
imperfect law selectively. If you ask me, I prefer perfect law (but I am
biased because I'm in Russia and I often see how selective application may be
terribly abused). On the other side, it is not always feasible or possible to
design perfect law. But in this particular situation IMHO it is definitely the
better option.

------
johnnybgoode
Like the client quoted in the article said, "Nothing like kicking someone when
they are down."

Page A-1! I hope that means something good will come of this.

------
jimbokun
There used to be one of the only two political parties in this country that at
least nominally claimed to care about stuff like this.

Unfortunately, now they are singularly obsessed with defending the right of
the government to arbitrarily detain and torture anyone it pleases.

I am hoping that we can get back to having two somewhat viable political
parties some day, so there can be an actual debate about issues like the
proper role and limitations of government regulations.

------
jonursenbach
Wow that's complete fucking bullshit. I thought this city was trying to clean
up its homeless problem.

------
sown
Spirit of the law vs letter of the law.

------
tomjen
And this is why it should be legal to shot bureaucrats on sight. How petty do
you have to be to prevent a homeless man from bettering himself?

~~~
jrockway
You're advocating murder?

Anyway, yes, the system tends to fail when people work outside of the system.
I'm not sure why this guy can't live in the subsidized housing until he has
enough money to legally run a business and pay his own rent, though.

~~~
johnnybgoode
_Moore doesn't want to get into city housing, preferring to make it on his
own._

This man wants to make an honest living, and you're criticizing him for not
taking welfare instead? Believe me, this man is not the reason for the failure
of the system.

~~~
sneakums
False dichotomy. And how it dishonest to avail of a welfare system one has
contributed to in the past and/or will contribute to in the future?

~~~
johnnybgoode
To be clear, perhaps I should have said "make a living for himself" instead of
"make an honest living".

