Interesting article on homeless in their vehicles

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I agree with the article, but like most things it isn't that simple. There are numerous reasons for people living in vehicles and that is where it gets political in many cases. From what I read, many members don't care for the political aspect of the article, Some don't like the tone or the call to arms so to speak. It's not because it isn't true or factual IMO.
 
OkieDreamer said:
I agree with the article, but like most things it isn't that simple. There are numerous reasons for people living in vehicles and that is where it gets political in many cases. From what I read, many members don't care for the political aspect of the article, Some don't like the tone or the call to arms so to speak. It's not because it isn't true or factual IMO.

thank you. i guess it does kind of have a "call to arms" tone as you say...
jim
 
txmnjim said:
ok, i'll bite. do you folks think this article is "manufactured" and we don't have an issue with
homelessness or people having to live in their vehicles by necessity and not choice? furthermore,
can any of you point out ANY factual errors in the article?

OK I'll start.

  • Houseless = Homeless = true?
  • Lack of fixed physical address (where you can be found) = Homeless = true?
Those are the premise that this whole article is built on.  If they are not true . . .
It would take a considerable amount of time to research their facts.  If their starting point is biased their conclusions will be biased.

I'll ask a couple of questions in return:

  • Who decides what adequate housing is?
  • Who is responsible for providing this defined adequate housing?
  • At what percentage of the population does homelessness become 'tragic', 'a crisis', an epidemic'?
 
the article combines that 'I do not want to live this way' and all the problems the population has regarding affordable housing, circumstances that can leave one literally homeless and they DO NOT want to be there, then they throw in that little bit of 'hey I am fine, this is what I desire'.....and to me those 2 issues are way different, not to be in the same article truly. Those who desire to live in a vehicle are not the homeless that are forced.....so.

but agree with MaTaLa in that I hate articles like this, I shy from reading this crap, but article was posted here so I checked it out. they just don't tell the real story at all, they jumble this and that together, blur it all up and you walk away with no good feeling from it.

homelessness is a real deal point blank and shouldn't be about 'those who find living in a vehicle a choice they desire' cause the real homeless mostly are a forced situation and they don't want it and it is a living nightmare in all aspects of life for them.
 
Spaceman Spiff said:
OK I'll start.

  • Houseless = Homeless = true?
  • Lack of fixed physical address (where you can be found) = Homeless = true?
Those are the premise that this whole article is built on.  If they are not true . . .
It would take a considerable amount of time to research their facts.  If their starting point is biased their conclusions will be biased.

I'll ask a couple of questions in return:

  • Who decides what adequate housing is?
  • Who is responsible for providing this defined adequate housing?
  • At what percentage of the population does homelessness become 'tragic', 'a crisis', an epidemic'?
 well being that the article itself was about "homeless people" who have to live in their cars
then i would say houseless=homeless in this article. i agree in this forum that doesn't apply, 
but i will venture to guess that the *majority* of participants here started out this journey
from economic necessity. and yes, the society decides your other questions, and as someone
struggling to maintain an "adequate housing" i just hope i don't ever fall into the homeless,
structureless, and vehicle-less category!
 
i totally agree, but this article was about people who mostly were in a
forced situation and having to live in their cars. and you never know who
they may be--i was contacted by a Facebook friend after posting this article
to thank me and let me know that she had been living out of her car for two
years, despite holding down a full-time job, and only recently found someone
she could rent a room from!
 
txmnjim said:
people having to live in their vehicles by necessity and not choice



I can't speak for others, but my gripe is the tendency of "the big bad evil press muaa ha ha ha !!!" to continually equate these two entirely separate things.

People who live voluntarily on the road are not the same as people who do it involuntarily because they have no choice. And the two should not be treated as if they are the same.

It's like saying "backpackers are homeless people".  Sorry, completely different situations.

PS--when it comes to the actual homeless who are forced by circumstances to live that way, it should be a source of shame to the wealthiest society that has ever existed in all of human history to have any of its citizens living that way. But alas, we as a society decided long ago that we simply don't care what happens to them, as long as we can't see them cluttering up our sidewalk. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 
The media never seems to get it that there are those that do not want a sticks & bricks home with all of its baggage (taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, keeping up appearances for the neighbors' sake, a lawn that dictates how you spend your leisure hours, worries about weather damage, neighbors from hell....and on and on). It is as though we shouldn't have the freedom of choice because by golly, this is how it has always been done and therefore should be done! Society tries to shame some for thinking outside the box....or choosing to sleep in a different type of box.
 
MaTaLa said:
@lenny flank
+1 Hammer on nail head there


A couple years ago, right after my book came out, I was contacted by someone from CNN's website who wanted to do a story of "people who live in Walmart lots" and wanted to interview me. Within seconds, it became apparent that I was not really the story they wanted. I'm a middle-aged fairly well-off dude who van-dwells because it is the most flexible and most interesting way to see the country. They were looking for a poor down-and-out pitiable victim of the housing crisis. They never ran any story.

A short time after that, I was contacted by a TV production company who wanted to talk about doing a series. I told them that my van-life simply isn't that exciting. I get up, I wash up in the sink, I go sightsee someplace, I go home to the van, I cook dinner, I read in bed, I go to sleep, and once a month or so I move to a different city. No conflict, no drama, no excitement--it's actually pretty dull and boring, unless they planned to create some TV drama artificially by setting up conflicts with the neighbors or cops or whoever. I told them it might be interesting as  straight-up "travel" show, but even then, I wasn't all that excited to have a film crew following me around everywhere and setting my schedule and destinations for me. They never responded back to me.

I do of course understand that we voluntarily dwellers are completely outside most people's experience, and so they often have trouble understanding that we live this way by choice because they never see anything like it in their lives. But it sure doesn't strike me as being THAT hard to grasp ...... Heck, there have been wanderers on wheels ever since there have been wheels.

I am not a homeless person. I don't need any help, and I don't need any pity. I could have a sticks-and-bricks home tomorrow afternoon if I wanted one--I simply do not want one, and I am entirely happy the way I am. All I need is a safe place where I can park at night, and then move on.
 
People who live in buildings assume everyone wants to live in buildings and that living in buildings is the best. So, naturally, their solution is buildings -- but without decreasing the value of THEIR buildings. So no low cost housing anywhere near themselves. And probably not in their city or with their money. So somewhere else, done by someone else.
 
I have a sister who is mentally ill. Housing is available for her, but she continues to blow it off and chooses to basically camp out down the road from me in mom's and dad's old place that started out being a nice place 15 years ago and now looks like a homeless encampment. No power (didn't pay the bill) water iffy it froze. So this article does concern me, but the laws are such that if a person isn't a harm to themselves or others they have that right to make decisions. i wonder how many of the homeless are in a similar boat. You can't fix people who don't want to be fixed. I tell ya what, they would move into your place and in a short time your place would be in the same shape. So there is that angle also the article didn't cover. giving some of the homeless homes so to speak in a short time it would be unlivable.
 
^^^ Indeed, this is the problem we Walmart-campers face all the time. It's nice of Walmart to let us park there. But inevitably it also attracts the local homeless (it is a sad reality that there is a very high correlation between being homeless and mental illness/substance abuse issues), who quickly turn the place into a shithole (literally). Since the Walmart has no way to tell who will eff the place up and who will not, their only option is to ban EVERYBODY.

That same difficulty always faces cities who set aside special parking areas for "vehicle dwellers".

It may indeed only be a small percentage of homeless people who cause all the trouble--but we all end up paying the price for it anyway.

The best option would be to get the mentally-ill and substance-abusers off the streets and into the help that they need, but alas nobody wants to pay for that. So as a society, we have decided to just dump them outside and let them fend for themselves.

:(
 
lenny flank said:
The best option would be to get the mentally-ill and substance-abusers off the streets and into the help that they need, but alas nobody wants to pay for that. So as a society, we have decided to just dump them outside and let them fend for themselves.

:(

We used to have the mental health hospitals but the do gooders felt it was unfair to lock them up while receiving care so they were set free with the hopes they would take their meds.  With no one responsible for them taking their meds, they stopped taking them.  At least this is the way I remember it.  Neither solution was optimal.
 
Multiple reasons for people being "homeless" as they would call it, one besides obvious lack of money other reasons are lack of funds for down payment on mortgage that never gets paid off, lack of land that is affordable is another, then after you buy that land you got restrictions and permit hoops to jump through, The system is broken and is causing homeless in itself not just through monetary means but the ability to freely build on your own property. Who has $10,000 for building permit on 1000 sq ft house then you got electrical permits, plumbing and if you aren't in the city and your property septic doesn't perc that's another $20,000 for the system. How about mandatory taping into locality water supply, that's $5000 sometimes or drilling a well in Colorado can cost you $20,000 cause it's illegal to harvest rain water.
Now lets say you just want to rent, that's not happening in majority of the places due to lack of credit or criminal record or shortage of housing.
Us here want to get off the hamster wheel live life uninhibited and if we are put in the category of homeless than let it be...
I don't own a home though I own land and truck camper and like it this way, free to move about.
Signed,
Your local hobo...
 
Well, I'm not gonna go political. Suffice it to say that NOBODY has done anything effective to help the mentally-ill homeless. NOBODY. I suspect that is because, deep down inside, nobody WANTS to. As a society, we view them as disposable people who simply don't matter a rat's ass.

But that is a topic that strays far from the purpose of this forum. Suffice it to say that when we vehicle-dwellers get lumped together with the mentally-ill homeless (and that is what the article cited in the thread does), we always end up paying the price for it.
 
lenny flank said:
Well, I'm not gonna go political. Suffice it to say that NOBODY has done anything effective to help the mentally-ill homeless. NOBODY. I suspect that is because, deep down inside, nobody WANTS to. As a society, we view them as disposable people who simply don't matter a rat's ass.

But that is a topic that strays far from the purpose of this forum. Suffice it to say that when we vehicle-dwellers get lumped together with the mentally-ill homeless (and that is what the article cited in the thread does), we always end up paying the price for it.
i certainly agree with you on the mentally-ill homeless plight, but i don't think the article was saying everyone 
that lives in their vehicles are homeless or mentally ill. in fact, at one place they say; 
[font=Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Of course a lot of Americans are living in their RVs by choice, [/font][font=Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]but others are doing it because a traditional home is not an affordable alternative at this point.[/font][font=Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] [/font]
i know it "may" lead to the continued stigma that all people in vehicles are homeless, 
but that's on the reader. the article is about homeless people living in their vehicles
NOT about all vehicle-living people. anyway, good discussion though :)
 
lenny flank said:
A couple years ago, right after my book came out, I was contacted by someone from CNN's website who wanted to do a story of "people who live in Walmart lots" and wanted to interview me. Within seconds, it became apparent that I was not really the story they wanted. I'm a middle-aged fairly well-off dude who van-dwells because it is the most flexible and most interesting way to see the country. They were looking for a poor down-and-out pitiable victim of the housing crisis. They never ran any story.

A short time after that, I was contacted by a TV production company who wanted to talk about doing a series. I told them that my van-life simply isn't that exciting. I get up, I wash up in the sink, I go sightsee someplace, I go home to the van, I cook dinner, I read in bed, I go to sleep, and once a month or so I move to a different city. No conflict, no drama, no excitement--it's actually pretty dull and boring, unless they planned to create some TV drama artificially by setting up conflicts with the neighbors or cops or whoever. I told them it might be interesting as  straight-up "travel" show, but even then, I wasn't all that excited to have a film crew following me around everywhere and setting my schedule and destinations for me. They never responded back to me.

I do of course understand that we voluntarily dwellers are completely outside most people's experience, and so they often have trouble understanding that we live this way by choice because they never see anything like it in their lives. But it sure doesn't strike me as being THAT hard to grasp ...... Heck, there have been wanderers on wheels ever since there have been wheels.

I am not a homeless person. I don't need any help, and I don't need any pity. I could have a sticks-and-bricks home tomorrow afternoon if I wanted one--I simply do not want one, and I am entirely happy the way I am. All I need is a safe place where I can park at night, and then move on.

I totally agree.  I will be beginning my "homeless" adventure totally by choice in a couple of months.  I have a pretty good pension that should cover all of my needs if I don't go crazy with spending.  I am voluntarily leaving a paid for house to be a nomad in my van.  Why?  Because at 60 years of age I realize that I don't have a lot of time left on this earth, and I choose to see this beautiful country while I am still healthy enough to do it.

I choose to "bow out" of this rat race society with it's distorted values and materialistic reality.  I choose to not play anymore, and i am sacrificing a lot of material possessions and personal relationships to do it.  

The goal of being alone, or with like minded nomads in the desert appeals to me as much as any other goal I have made for myself.

I am a retired public servant so I have dealt with the underbelly of this society for most of my adult life, so I have decided to be my own society and live in freedom.  I have had enough and it is time to leave.
 
Reasons for real homelessness are myriad. So looking for a one fix all answer is pointless. Saying that this country's government and it's citizens don't care about the poor and homeless simply isn't true. Since the mid to late 60's 22 trillion has been spent on welfare and poverty programs. That's a lot of money and really nothing to show for it. There have always been homeless, all over the world. There always will be. That's not to say efforts should not continue to help. Societies that are perfect have never existed, never will.
 
Reporters need to get used to the idea that there are a lot of voluntary nomads in vans, and our vans are our homes so we're not homeless. There have been nomadic people in the world since forever... since the beginnings of the human race. Only difference is that our homes now have wheels and engines rather than being tents transported by pack animals.

I wish I knew the solution for the homeless and people who want to live in sticks and bricks but can't. It is a complex problem and HUD needs to come up with better solutions. Their section 8 program is nice but with long waiting lists and limited number of certificates, and demand that some types of homeless people can't deal with, it isn't covering the problem adequately.

I think if we really care about the homelessness situation we should put pressure on HUD to come up with realistic solutions to get deranged and destitute people off the streets. This shouldn't be happening in America.

I remember 40 years ago reading about people living on the sidewalks in India, and thinking how awful that was . . . and here we are only a few years later and America is experiencing the exact same thing.
 
Top