Homelessness [split from Leadville and Salida Ranger Districts]

[rruff]

Seattle has volunteers who literally beat the bushes to do an annual count of the homeless who are living on the streets in shelters, vehicles and tent
encampments or in the wooded areas. If you wanted to you could look up those statistics. It is a lot more accurate than the counts that just list the people using shelters and official social services.

HUD must be doing something to measure them as well, since they have a category for "unsheltered". No idea how accurate it is.

Portland and Seattle and really the entire west coast is a homeless magnet... because they are accommodating, relatively... and the climate isn't too bad. I definitely wouldn't extrapolate their trends to the whole country.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Mine is a very small sample size, not scientific, and just my observations:
- during the 45+ years I've been volunteering at this mission our numbers haven't changed significantly.
- during 'pleasant' weather we have about 40 - 50 (out of 89) overnight beds filled.
- during 'uncomfortable' weather we are full.
- during 'dangerous' weather we add 'beds' to the max the fire department will allow (~120).
- we feed 120 to 200 meals 3 times a day and up to 250 on special occasions (Christmas, etc.)
So about 40% of our clients prefer outdoors instead of a clean bed, bathroom, and shower.

I don't believe numbers from advocacy groups or local governments when the amount of money they get (or agitate for) is based on those numbers.

IMO housing for the homeless is held back by unrealistic requirements by homeless advocates and government. Under Proposition HHH (10,000 homes) the cost of each unit is $600,000 to $800,000+ in California. We, of all people, should know what safe, comfortable, adequate housing should cost.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs

 

[bullfrog !]

I’m always amazed by how many great solutions are out there but nobody wants to see that they a built and managed. Incredible Tiny Homes is one that is attempting to build a business doing just that. Seems something trailer based might be best although a group in England is building recyclable Lego type boxes to build quickly livable “rooms” inside existing structures like empty warehouses and even vans. Federal government has been using temporary housing for disasters and I believe has a large number of Boxable houses on order. Since local cites and even states are not able to deal with the problem looks like the federal government could using federal lands, disaster type housing and government employment/training programs to solve much of the problem to me and for a lot less money.

 

[wayne49]

It might be a mistake to think that all people without housing are capable of living in a structure, or that they desire to be enclosed among strangers.

Also, that they only lack training to become useful members of society.

Public housing (aka projects) tends to depreciate faster than private housing.

When someone else is paying for something, the end user has no skin in the game.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^Requirements can be created to where they do have skin in the game. For many like myself joining the military was my opportunity to get out of poverty. If you could afford it or had the opportunity to get a skill by going to a vocational school while in high school or after helped. In my case I had to do that while in high school and I graduated early so I could get away from a very toxic home life. I really didn’t have an option to go to college other than through the military as my birthday when I turned 18 the next fall was the number 1 pick for the draft in 1969 ( middle of the Viet Nam conflict ). I was able after seven years of military service and using the skills I learned in vocational school and the military go to college and get a degree which made for better job opportunities. Three kids later, a bankruptcy and house payments I barely was able to make we sold everything and started living simply in an old motorhome. Been almost 20 years and we have managed to do better every year. This year we will be finally moving out of our now 40 year old motorhome! Lol!!! I feel every citizen should serve in some way at least a few years or more their country and for that the country should provide at least their basic needs if they are unable to. Opportunity, motivation, education and living a healthy lifestyle are key to solving the problem of homelessness. Good health care which includes enabling the disabled and treatment for those that are mentally ill are important as well. Our government is capable of doing almost anything even when it is totally wrong, just Google search McNamara’s Morons, surly if it wanted to the problem could be solved the right way.

 

[user 22017]

Public housing (aka projects) tends to depreciate faster than private housing.

I doubt that.

 

[Happy Camper]

I doubt that.

It's been proven that in some instances properties are given different values depending on an owners physical features.

Why would public, more income housing not appreciate slower than "normal" housing? That's unrealistic.

Unfortunately, premium land is probably privately owned, so the land itself is worth less where they can buy it. Add to the fact that rents are heavily regulated with much less chance of profit in such housing.

In ten years private property X value has followed the market up.

The lower income housing won't. Lower rent, less desirable location (most likely), in general more people with issues (some not all), makes it a given that the valuation would be lower.

Might not seem fair. But it's better than being homeless.

 

[rruff]

Lower rent, less desirable location (most likely), in general more people with issues (some not all), makes it a given that the valuation would be lower.

"This simple analysis ignores an important aspect of reality, namely, subsidies for the maintenance and modernization of public and private housing projects."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1051137709000059

 

[rruff]

It might be a mistake to think that all people without housing are capable of living in a structure, or that they desire to be enclosed among strangers.
Also, that they only lack training to become useful members of society.

So about 40% of our clients prefer outdoors instead of a clean bed, bathroom, and shower.

I thought there was a strong element of independence among most of the homeless I met. Not that they were opposed to handouts, but they liked being on their own, doing what they wanted to do, when they wanted to do it. Their needs were very simple and worries few. They had friends, they did things together, and they had fun. It was not all crushed spirits by any means. More like an epiphany that the rat race was simply not worth the trouble. Of course this would have been the ones more on the spectrum of functionality who could have worked to some degree, but enjoyed their life as it was.

It was one of my last nights in Santa Cruz and I was parked on the street where lots of other rubber tramps were parked. It was pretty late and I heard some noises outside my truck and had a look. There was a guy with a bicycle and a little bundle, wrapped in blankets and a sleeping bag, propped up against a streetlight, reading a book. I popped out to say hello and he seemed friendly so we talked a bit. He'd been drinking downtown and was trying to make his way back to his campsite in the redwoods, and when he saw this nice patch of soft ground cover with a convenient "reading light", and not too far from the soup kitchen he decided... screw it I'll just stay here for the night. And he did. Not an unusual vibe.

 

[rruff]

IMO housing for the homeless is held back by unrealistic requirements by homeless advocates and government. Under Proposition HHH (10,000 homes) the cost of each unit is $600,000 to $800,000+ in California. We, of all people, should know what safe, comfortable, adequate housing should cost.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs

The incredible mass of approvals and studies required, and all the people who make their livings pushing this paper and overseeing every little thing, means it's 100x what it should cost.

Also, in many urban environments the little patch of land that you'd put a tiny house on does cost 10x the price of the house or more. And if you put the homeless in places they don't want to be, they won't stay there. Many prefer a more stimulating and interesting environment with regular people around... not to mention tourists they can beg for money! It's a little like "living off the land". So long as they can get food (which is easy, through charity or government) and they can spange for a little spending money, have a place to sleep that is safe and warm and dry enough, they are happy.

A very important element of this that should never be overlooked, is that the homeless are absolutely not a local issue, yet they are always dealt with by local agencies. You have some people trying to help them, and many others who live in the same neighborhoods hounding the cops to get rid of them. It's a weird dynamic where if you provide good services and environment for the homeless, then more will move there! They aren't stupid... they want to live somewhere with a good climate, good services, and accommodating authorities... if possible. Easy living. Of course for the local residents and their taxes, property values, crime rates, etc... simply kicking the homeless out is the "best" thing to do. Make it someone else's problem... don't spend money and encourage more of them! Whack a mole...

 

[DLTooley]

This lawsuit, though about stereotypical urban homelessness, is relevant to this topic. Perhaps most so in that we are treated as stereotypical homeless by many federal law enforcement. (But not Bullfrog, if I remember right!)

I was one of those ‘transitional’ homeless after losing my house in January 2010 for 3.6 years, spending maybe six months in traditional and non-traditional ‘homeless’ arrangements, though I always had a vehicle.

The non-traditional tent cities are worth a check out, but at that time in Seattle not good. I have seen more good than bad in traditional shelters. If you don’t drink staff will respect you.

For what it’s worth alcohol is the likely route by which the typical transitional client becomes permanent. On that same mechanism I do wonder about the statistical end Road of heavier drinking RV folks.

https://www.aclu-co.org/en/press-re...-aclus-applied-challenge-boulders-camping-ban

 

[bullfrog !]

One of the reasons for my suggestion of LTVAs near larger cities is because of access to services, treatment centers and jobs. Remote living requires a lot of skill and planning in order to be “cheap”, although many concessionaires offer housing to employees and will hire just about anyone with a pulse it would be difficult living if you are trying to overcome addictions and trying to save enough to get to your next job. Seems a lot of the suicides occur here a short time after finishing/losing a job.

 

[rruff]

For what it’s worth alcohol is the likely route by which the typical transitional client becomes permanent.

How about meth and fentanyl? Forget Breaking Bad, domestic cookers can't compete with cheap crap being shipped up from Mexico. I guess the numbers are still quite a bit less than alcohol though.

 

[Happy Camper]

That truly depends on location as well. Those drugs are in higher street use in some areas. Other areas alcohol is the main issue. Regardless, addiction is a burden.

 

[tx2sturgis]

I moved a lot of items to this new thread to reflect the current topic.

Carry on please.

 

[user 36542]

There are ways to change state regulations or restrictions over RV living. It would take organized planning on a county level. It can be done in a practical way that protects our RV freedoms and compromises in a way that protects home owners and business owners.

 

[DLTooley]

One of the reasons for my suggestion of LTVAs near larger cities is because of access to services, treatment centers and jobs. Remote living requires a lot of skill and planning in order to be “cheap”, although many concessionaires offer housing to employees and will hire just about anyone with a pulse it would be difficult living if you are trying to overcome addictions and trying to save enough to get to your next job. Seems a lot of the suicides occur here a short time after finishing/losing a job.

I like the idea, but for the reasons you state the management is more complex.

There however are a lot of working homeless, hopefully of a more transitional nature, what those actual numbers are and how they are changing may be difficult to get.

There is certainly a tradition of services in homelessness, but it is politicized. Personally, I think the Nomad community can, already does, provide services that are less political. That’s also going to be a more transitional, and easier, group than the chronic folks.

Employment is a big part of what is needed. I’m more focused on rural these days. I live in Telluride in SW Colorado and there is a big need for workers. The seasonal nature of the work does fit well with the nomad lifestyle,

 

[DLTooley]

How about meth and fentanyl? Forget Breaking Bad, domestic cookers can't compete with cheap crap being shipped up from Mexico. I guess the numbers are still quite a bit less than alcohol though.

Certainly. I’ve seen meth but don’t really know about fentanyl. I think cooking and transport would be more likely a problem than addiction in the neighborhood mad world, more so nearer urban areas.

Personally, I don’t care about most drug use but meth and opiates including fentanyl have high rates of associated problems.

 

[egilbe]

Oddly enough, the state with the highest cost of living, the highest income and the ridiculously high property values also has 1/3 the homeless and shelterless population in the country. I'm sure the fairly pleasant weather also contributes...well, until recently, anyway. I'm sure there's both a causation and correlation there

 

[bullfrog !]

I don’t think it is so odd. A lot of our first IT type van dwellers with nicer newer vans had really high paying jobs but not enough to afford rent. Lots of Navy spent 6 months at sea and 6 months on shore, made sense a good part of shore time was leave time. Lots of them living in RVs during shore time then storing it or loaning it to family members while at sea. Having so much coast line many lived on boats. As they aged or boats got to expensive to maintain they switched to “land yachts” and started traveling the country. I imagine a large number of people see good paying jobs and figure they can find some kind of housing they can afford only to end up “working poor” and eventually homeless.