Interesting article on homeless in their vehicles

[RoamerRV428]

mentally ill or homeless etc for whatever reason, I think there is basic compassion that will come from anyone's mouth about the situations, but it boils down to how much money it would cost to 'maintain' them. All boils down to who is going to foot the bill? the almighty dollar rules the world and it is so sad truly. The dollar trumps it all!

 

[travelaround]

Here's HUD's page for helping the homeless...

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/homeless

Here's an idea.

1. Cities should make sidewalk sleeping illegal.
2. There should be a building to house addicts - people who would otherwise be sleeping on the street because of addictions.
3. Another building to house people with mental problems who aren't addicts.
4. Another building to house single women who don't fall into the above categories.
5. Another building to house single men who don't fall into the above categories.
6. A program to re-home families with young children. (saving the re-homing for this category, for the well-being of children.) This might require some kind of Habitat for Humanity home building project, or section 8 rental assistance.

Anyone who didn't like living in their building could work their way out but if they sleep on the street they get to spend 2 days in jail then taken to the appropriate building.

Tell me why this wouldn't work.

 

[txmnjim]

mentally ill or homeless etc for whatever reason, I think there is basic compassion that will come from anyone's mouth about the situations, but it boils down to how much money it would cost to 'maintain' them.  All boils down to who is going to foot the bill?  the almighty dollar rules the world and it is so sad truly.  The dollar trumps it all!

i remember seeing a 60 Minutes (i believe?) about Utah having one of the lowest homeless populations 
in the country. apparently it costs less dollars of the public treasury to provide housing for folks than it
costs to leave them on the street and deal with police responses, emergency services responses, and a 
host of other related issues? when someone says there's got to be a better way, there usually is but
someone is making money by the status quo and they don't want change...

 

[lenny flank]

apparently it costs less dollars of the public treasury to provide housing for folks than it
costs to leave them on the street and deal with police responses, emergency services responses, and a 
host of other related issues

IIRC, the US Senate Report on the 2007 mortgage collapse found that it cost more to bail out the banks and mortgage companies than it would have to just pay off the mortgage of everyone who defaulted.

As for providing houses for the homeless, that'll probably work for some, perhaps even most. But see then the point made by one of the posts above--there will always be some proportion of people who will simply trash their house and end up back in the street again.   

The problem isn't just "getting a house for everyone"--the underlying issues (and for many that means 'mental illness" or "substance abuse") have to be dealt with too. That is not easy, and nobody seems to want to pay for it.

 

[B and C]

That is not easy, and nobody seems to want to pay for it.

I don't know if it is an issue with paying for it or having a solution that would work.  The solution has to come first and it isn't giving everyone a house.

 

[owl]

Here's HUD's page for helping the homeless...

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/homeless

Here's an idea.

1. Cities should make sidewalk sleeping illegal.
2. There should be a building to house addicts - people who would otherwise be sleeping on the street because of addictions.
3. Another building to house people with mental problems who aren't addicts.
4. Another building to house single women who don't fall into the above categories.
5. Another building to house single men who don't fall into the above categories.
6. A program to re-home families with young children. (saving the re-homing for this category, for the well-being of children.) This might require some kind of Habitat for Humanity home building project, or section 8 rental assistance.

Anyone who didn't like living in their building could work their way out but if they sleep on the street they get to spend 2 days in jail then taken to the appropriate building.

Tell me why this wouldn't work.

Make sidewalk sleeping illegal, then make sleeping in a vehicle illegal. Why not just outlaw poverty, problem solved. Given the fact that city, state and the federal government are broke, where does all this money come from?

 

[travelaround]

If a city like San Francisco is too broke to buy 4 buildings to house the homeless they should get better financial managers! Truth is they probably already own 4 buildings that are empty or could be repurposed for shelter housing. Get the people living in the shelters to do the maintenance jobs. It would be better to pay them to work than to pay them general assistance welfare.

Vehicle living could be allowed with parking lots set aside for sleeping. The sidewalk sleepers are the ones that need to be moved to better and safer accommodations, for their well-being and to improve the appearance of the city. Homeless sleeping in most winter weather is inhumane.

City taxpayers can decide whether they want to contribute to the cleanliness of their city or move somewhere else where tent cities on sidewalks aren't an issue. There's no such thing here where I live, but I used to live in San Francisco and am appalled by what's going on there now.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Here's an idea.

1. Cities should make sidewalk sleeping illegal.
2. There should be a building to house addicts - people who would otherwise be sleeping on the street because of addictions.
3. Another building to house people with mental problems who aren't addicts.
4. Another building to house single women who don't fall into the above categories.
5. Another building to house single men who don't fall into the above categories.
6. A program to re-home families with young children. (saving the re-homing for this category, for the well-being of children.) This might require some kind of Habitat for Humanity home building project, or section 8 rental assistance.

Anyone who didn't like living in their building could work their way out but if they sleep on the street they get to spend 2 days in jail then taken to the appropriate building.

Tell me why this wouldn't work.

When I was in high school I worked in your buildings #2, 3, & 5 combined in one.  It was called 'the poor farm' in the 40's and 50's, but just the county men's residence when I worked there.  There was a similar building for women.

Guys had a safe place with 3 good meals a day, a clean bed, bathing, clothes and laundry, basic medical, a warm place to stay during the day.

When the vagrancy and loitering laws were ruled unenforceable it didn't work anymore.  The courts ruled that you could not 'jail' someone for just sleeping on a sidewalk and most of the men would rather sleep drunk on a sidewalk than sober in a warm, comfortable place.  And if you allowed drunk and high men to stay your security, maintenance, and liability costs went out of control.

 

[travelaround]

I wonder what court decision that was. I'd like to read it.

Here's a news story about a recent case in which the Ninth Circuit Court (Appellate court for western states) ruled that a city can't arrest people for sidewalk sleeping *when there is no other place to sleep* ... keywords ... in order to use my plan, at least in states ruled by the Ninth Circuit ... a city would have to provide adequate shelter as an alternative to sidewalks.

It all depends on how much a city wants to present a clean and humane appearance while doing the right thing for the poorest of the poor.

 

[JohnnyM]

Here's an idea.

1. Cities should make sidewalk sleeping illegal.
 
Travelaround,

I'm curious about why you said sidewalk sleeping should be made illegal. Would you explain what your thinking was there?

Johnny

 

[BeachHouse]

San Francisco is the perfect example (warning, really) of persisting with good intentions and naive idealism either unwilling to face (or too naive to anticipate) the highly predictable consequences of your policy actions. If someone repeatedly smashes their hand with a hammer, then is puzzled at why their hand is broken and doesn't work, there comes a point where you just can't bother feeling sorry for them.

As far as the definition of 'homeless' and its nexus with people involved with mobile living, for me, the yardstick is simple.
It's a lifestyle choice for people who could afford to live the more traditional way but choose not to.
It's a life circumstance for people who live that way because they have no other options.

 

[travelaround]

Johnny - my idea to make sidewalk sleeping illegal is based on this... unless it is outlawed people will keep on doing it. There has to be some motivation to stop. The courts say it can't be illegal unless there's a place for people to stay... so cities would have to focus on accommodations prior to arresting anyone for breaking this kind of law.

Unfortunately at this time they seem to be relying on churches and other charitable organizations to provide shelter space... and I think this is something the cities need to take responsibility for. What the charities are doing seems to be inadequate to meet the needs of all homeless people.... a good effort for sure, but there are more homeless people than beds!

 

[travelaround]

It's a lifestyle choice for people who could afford to live the more traditional way but choose not to.
It's a life circumstance for people who live that way because they have no other options.

I think people with cars or something larger to sleep in are not completely homeless because they have a roof over their heads and a place to sleep. Some need a different attitude about the situation - so they can view the lifestyle as an adventure rather than a disaster. Cities need designated parking areas for people living in their vehicles.

The homeless who have no vehicles need to be helped up out of that situation, either by getting livable vehicles, or humane shelter accommodations which I think should look more like private apartments, rather than a large room with multiple beds. Everyone needs their own space.

 

[RoamerRV428]

Cities aren't going to give up too much real estate to establish homeless/0,low income living quarters cause they do want to 'try to revive' downtown cities into profitable living/earning potential. Making your main city a huge low income/0 income living establishment just ain't good for a city......you know what I mean, about money and revitalization and drawing new, fresh, young populations and hopefully business to boot etc. to make a thriving upcoming city, not a stagnant dead end of the line.......so I wonder just how much 'truth behind the scenes' is really about true humanitarianism etc? not much is my guess

 

[Ticklebellly]

...my idea to make sidewalk sleeping illegal is based on this... unless it is outlawed people will keep on doing it.

I have spoken to several street dwellers who choose to pass on S&Bs and other accommodation.    They get quite upset that some want to impose their ideas of what's best for them, on them.    Help for the homeless and rough sleepers works best when the support provided is requested from them, a bottom up approach rather then a top down "it's illegal" use of differential power.

 

[geogentry]

Since the mid to late 60's 22 trillion has been spent on welfare and poverty programs.

Programs is the key word in that statement. How much of that money went into payroll for the bureaucracy to administer those programs?

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

 

[geogentry]

After reading through this whole thread I went and read the article. Although some valid points are made, I felt for the most part it was a bunch of bologna.

Yes I am houseless. I do not pay a bank or landlord for the privilege of a house. I do have a home. I sleep every night in a bed. I have a place to cook meals, and a way to cook them. It is not what is traditionally seen by Society as a home. Society generally feels uneasy at the prospect of not having a house. I feel uneasy at the prospect of having to live in a house. Currently if I don't like my neighborhood I move. I don't have to pay anybody for that privilege as I would have to do if I owned a house.

That article depicts those who are not living in some structure as downtrodden members of society who pine for the opportunity to dwell in a structure. And they should be pitied because they do not. Well I feel sorry, and pity, for those who do reside in a dwelling and must spend a great portion of their income for that privilege.

I personally have a greater quality of life than if I were to live in some dwelling somewhere. I have seen and enjoyed more of the sites of America in the last year than a resident of a dwelling will see in the next 20 years. I have gone places that the average dwelling resident cannot afford to go.

Yes, I am houseless. I am not homeless I am a nomad. I live life to the fullest. I experience the wonders of America at my leisure. My time is my own.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

 

[Satellite5812]

geogentry, I agree with you and with what Travelaround said earlier: "...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."

What I've been wondering these last few days is, why isn't there a Nomadic Pride Parade? We're often lumped in with the problem people and the destitute. Perhaps what we need is some positive visibility. We already have our wheels to parade in

 

[travelaround]

I have spoken to several street dwellers who choose to pass on S&Bs and other accommodation.    They get quite upset that some want to impose their ideas of what's best for them, on them.    Help for the homeless and rough sleepers works best when the support provided is requested from them, a bottom up approach rather then a top down "it's illegal" use of differential power.

I am aware of that. They wouldn't like it and some people are happier just sleeping on a sidewalk. That's why they wouldn't move on to another lifestyle even if offered a private living accommodation. Thus, the only way to keep city sidewalks available to all city residents is to make sidewalk camping illegal.

Do you like visiting a city where the sidewalks are crowded by people who live there in tents or under cardboard, who have no regard for cleanliness and sanitation? I find that to be a problem! I used to live in SF and love the city, but I don't plan to go back to see it this way. If people want to live in tents in the city, the city could provide a campground in the park for people who want to live that way, and leave the city sidewalks open to pedestrians again.

If you have a better solution for helping to solve the homelessness problem, please post it. That was my hope, that people would see my spur-of-the-moment idea, then make suggestions to give us better ideas for solving homeless issues... housing, vans, campgrounds, shelters, whatever!

The main problem I see is that some cities are not making accommodations to help the poorest of the poor - and by that I mean homeless without a van, car, or RV. Leaving it to charitable organizations to provide night time shelter space isn't enough.

 

[geogentry]

Thus, the only way to keep city sidewalks available to all city residents is to make sidewalk camping illegal.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say all the cities make camping on sidewalks illegal. Now what. We'll take your favorite City San Francisco. The last estimate places the number of people at 7000. If it's illegal will they get tickets? They're not going to pay them. Going to arrest them. Then they get free room and board until their trial. That clogs the courts. And if they are found guilty how long will you give them free room and board in the jail? And does San Francisco have the ability the house 7000 prisoners in the jail? Once they get out of jail. They'll go right back onto the street. And the process goes on and on and on. Making it illegal when I solve the problem.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk