This throws a bad light on RVs. News from Seattle

[VanFan]

How about we, as a community, provide decent living spaces within the budgets of the poorest among us without demanding they solve all their personal problems first?

Housing First seeks to do this. I don't know a lot about them, other than that my daughter did some street-level triage work with them in Dublin.

 

[bullfrog !]

It keeps getting recycled because little is getting done except by private non profit groups like those in the above post.

 

[RonDean]

I wonder how many threads in this forum have recycled this very same conversation over and over again?

More than one, I know. I have certainly repeated my opinion on this more than once.

But, I think this (homeless - junk RV - etc) problem might be closer to our RV lifestyle than many of us are willing to admit. I know it gets my attention. For many RVers, the recreational vehicle is to be used for a weekend jaunt and then return to their Mc Mansion and 8 to 5 job by Monday - or by the end of their vacation. I have no problem with that.

But, I believe this forum and the lifestyle Bob Wells originally advocated was for those of us that chose a more permanent nomadic life. As such, we would be regarded as "homeless" in the eyes of many. I also know that Bob, and many of us, were motivated as much by circumstances as conscious choice to become nomadic.

When I add it all up, I don't think we are all that distantly removed from the folks that saw their RVs towed off and which started this particular thread. As often as anyone wants to point at the problem, I will probably supply my opinion on it. To remain silent is as far from a solution as we can get.

 

[VanFan]

When I add it all up, I don't think we are all that distantly removed from the folks that saw their RVs towed..

Thinking we are distantly removed from anyone is a big part of our collective problem, IMO.

 

[WanderingRose]

And the same kind of encampment eradication is going on in Oakland, California…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...p-is-dismantled-my-world-was-ripped-to-pieces

 

[sithigh]

"Homeless" to "nomad" seems like more of a continuum than an either/or. Where would you draw the line? Based on how much money the person has? how new their vehicle is? how well they can afford to keep it up? how they got into the life in the first place? how long/successfully they've been in the life? their attitude? who they know? whether they've been in a Bob Wells video? where they cr@p? (You might be surprised who cr@ps in the street. I know I've been -- surprised, that is.)

Even if one person decides where they want to draw the line, how would they get others to agree?
and how would they measure it?
and how would they communicate it to the vast majority of people who don't participate in or think much about this stuff, who if they see an ass-hat in a rundown RV (or a shiny one) are not going to make fine distinctions?

Homelessness is primarily a problem for people who have lost their homes. Whatever inconvenience the rest of us are suffering from the behavior of some homeless people is minor in comparison. Homelessness is not bad behavior, it is a stressor that can tempt some people into bad behavior. I think it's important to maintain that distinction.

Wasn't this whole forum originally created for people facing homelessness? And isn't that (or the risk of it) still a pretty strong focus here (e.g. the evergreen $700-a-month thread)?

There needs to be a newly accepted set of labels for "everybody" to just know without checking their facts. Same as there is great prejudice against the cheaply dressed that are not loitering, vagrants, beggars or bums. So also is the prejudices against a perticular kind of vehicle or dwelling especially if built or maintained on the cheap. I prefer to shop without hanging about or causing any issues such as litter. All boondockers will be thrown together as they are not as identifiable as renters or leasers are.

 

[oceangirl]

Homeless people living in RVs, vans, trucks, or cars are not the same as nomads living in RVs, vans, trucks, and cars. This is a problem of homeslessness not a problem of RV ownership or van, truck, and car ownership.

 

[RonDean]

re: Homeless people living in RVs, vans, trucks, or cars are not the same as nomads living in RVs, vans, trucks, and cars. This is a problem of homeslessness not a problem of RV ownership or van, truck, and car ownership.

I do not argue with this statement. It is just that I think it is quite possible for society to judge unfairly. When does homelessness occur? Is it when I stop moving and my RV becomes stationary on a city street? OK. How about if I choose to stay longer and longer at an out of the way boon-docking site? The difference between these two is slight. How about stealth camping in the city for whatever reason? I see more than one young person choosing to do this instead of paying sky high rent while attending school or having a job. Not who I would typically think of when I hear the term homeless.

It seems to me that poverty is the real sin here. More and more people are not making enough money to pay the high prices for traditional shelter. They resort to alternate choices and are looked down on as vagrants, druggies, failures, etc. While this may sometimes be true, I think many (most?) of today's homeless poor are trying their best, or at least were until circumstances overwhelmed them. So, besides the poor themselves, who is at fault for this? Maybe a system that does not provide enough opportunity or training or education? How about a system the employs people at wages not high enough to afford a decent standard of living? And who is most able to change the situation?

While we would like to think the US is a meritocracy, statistics say otherwise. The number one determinate of success is the luck of who your parents are.
see> https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-success-income-inequality-2014-1
or> https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...-parents-are-more-important-than-ever/283301/

Not to say someone cannot do the bootstrap thing. Just that in the greater scheme of things, for the majority of us it is very unlikely.

 

[Happy Camper]

There was a time when if you didn't have $11 in your pocket you could be considered a vagrant and cited for it. Even if you had a stack of $100 bills waiting for you at home. Perception is key.

People have used blanket terms since we could communicate. We don't need to keep finely slicing and making new terms. We're already doing that in so many areas that it's hard to keep up.

I see homeless people in my area.
I see homeless people in vehicles in my area.
I see van lifers/dwellers in my area.

You can tell the difference. The police can too.

Some apartment renters handle their business and keep things up.
Some apartment renters are loud and disrespectful, and leave their crap everywhere.

You can tell the difference. The cops can too.

The same thing done different ways is still the same thing. And yes some don't have the resources to fix up a van or RV. But how you act and how you handle yourself will set you apart more than a new word or phrase.

Poverty doesn't mean you're a jerk. Or that you use drugs. Or that you can't clean up after yourself. It doesn't mean you're ignorant, or lazy.

But some use poverty as a catch-all to mean whatever they want it to mean.

We've all seen people in poverty that live respectable, good lives. They are proud, happy, and thoughtful. They might not have much, but they make good use of what they do have.

Poor, poverty, etc, are just words. It's not who people are. It's a circumstance. Who you are and how you go about your life is the determining factor.

A bad actor is going to remain one. Poor or rich. Until they decide they want something different.

Be a good person. Make good choices. When you make bad ones, get back up and make better ones.

Sorry for the long winded post, but it seems we hear the same things over and over.

I don't care if you're rich or poor. Just be a good human. The rest will work itself out.

 

[Overland One]

There was a time when if you didn't have $11 in your pocket you could be considered a vagrant and cited for it. Even if you had a stack of $100 bills waiting for you at home. Perception is key.

People have used blanket terms since we could communicate. We don't need to keep finely slicing and making new terms. We're already doing that in so many areas that it's hard to keep up.

I see homeless people in my area.
I see homeless people in vehicles in my area.
I see van lifers/dwellers in my area.

You can tell the difference. The police can too.

Some apartment renters handle their business and keep things up.
Some apartment renters are loud and disrespectful, and leave their crap everywhere.

You can tell the difference. The cops can too.

The same thing done different ways is still the same thing. And yes some don't have the resources to fix up a van or RV. But how you act and how you handle yourself will set you apart more than a new word or phrase.

Poverty doesn't mean you're a jerk. Or that you use drugs. Or that you can't clean up after yourself. It doesn't mean you're ignorant, or lazy.

But some use poverty as a catch-all to mean whatever they want it to mean.

We've all seen people in poverty that live respectable, good lives. They are proud, happy, and thoughtful. They might not have much, but they make good use of what they do have.

Poor, poverty, etc, are just words. It's not who people are. It's a circumstance. Who you are and how you go about your life is the determining factor.

A bad actor is going to remain one. Poor or rich. Until they decide they want something different.

Be a good person. Make good choices. When you make bad ones, get back up and make better ones.

Sorry for the long winded post, but it seems we hear the same things over and over.

I don't care if you're rich or poor. Just be a good human. The rest will work itself out.

Well said. I could not agree more.

 

[RonDean]

Happy, I also agree. Not that I wouldn't like to see a better system for us all. But, I can't dispute anything you said.

 

[user 36441]

I remember when Paul Erlich wrote The Population Bomb. I thought, "Yeah, that makes sense." Then I read something by the World Health Organization (WHO) that hypothesized that if the population problem could be solved, most of our other problems would go away.

That was years ago, and for some strange reason that idea has fallen out of favor. But I can't let it go. Every day I see something that reminds me of it, homelessness being one example. Seems those four words, "Go forth and multiply" have been used as an excuse for us to copulate ourselves to death with no thought to consequences. To me, it's a world gone mad.

I'm not offering any solutions here. Just making an observation.

 

[LargeMarge]

Thinking we are distantly removed from anyone is a big part of our collective problem, IMO.

.
Are you saying I have a collective problem?
Are you certain?
I am pretty sure I would never join a collective that would have somebody like me as a member...

 

[RonDean]

I remember when Paul Erlich wrote The Population Bomb. I thought, "Yeah, that makes sense." Then I read something by the World Health Organization (WHO) that hypothesized that if the population problem could be solved, most of our other problems would go away.

That was years ago, and for some strange reason that idea has fallen out of favor. But I can't let it go. Every day I see something that reminds me of it, homelessness being one example. Seems those four words, "Go forth and multiply" have been used as an excuse for us to copulate ourselves to death with no thought to consequences. To me, it's a world gone mad.

I'm not offering any solutions here. Just making an observation.

Actually, I understand that the global population is leveling out. Some countries (like Russia) are now incentivizing people to have more kids. Pew Research Center says: "World’s population is projected to stop growing by the end of the century." - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...early-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/.

Lots of reasons for this, but it does beg the question if population growth is not the problem leading to a shortage of decent shelter - what is?

 

[user 36441]

Actually, I understand that the global population is leveling out. Some countries (like Russia) are now incentivizing people to have more kids. Pew Research Center says: "World’s population is projected to stop growing by the end of the century." - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...early-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/.

Lots of reasons for this, but it does beg the question if population growth is not the problem leading to a shortage of decent shelter - what is?

The first thing I learned in an Economics class was that the subject assumes a condition of scarce resources. How things get allocated is one thing, but you still have a scarcity of resources to begin with. The more people there are, the less each person gets.

World population may be leveling off, but if you ask me it's far too little and far too late.

I think our leaders ignore the problem because fewer people would mean less tax revenue.

 

[Gr8ful]

America is leveling out also. People are dying earlier & the birth rate is down to 2 from 2.5 & still heading down. Demographics are changing also. Like Goshen, IN where 85% of US RVs are made is now mostly Hispanic who IMHO do a great job, are good family people & are assets to a community.

 

[rruff]

Lots of reasons for this, but it does beg the question if population growth is not the problem leading to a shortage of decent shelter - what is?

Population growth definitely isn't the issue. It's income and wealth disparity. The "powers that be" changed policies in the late 70s and early 80s, specifically for this purpose, and it's been a smashing success... and it doesn't show any signs of abating. I won't go into the details, but policies have favored profit over worker income, which has naturally led to an overabundance of "investment". People lack buying power, resulting in less investment in production or goods and services, and instead assets get inflated... primarily stocks, and the one we care more about... real estate.

I think the long game is AI related with a dramatic socio-economic shift. If/when AI gets advanced enough, making a large % of us unable to exchange work for a decent wage, there will be a big push to quickly reduce population... a lot. Existing housing will be cheaper then in many areas, but we won't be happy about it, since we'll be on the dole (if we are lucky) and in poverty.

 

[WanderingRose]

An article on the CNN app today about the estimated 11,000 people living in RV’s on the streets of Los Angeles.

I can’t get the link to copy, but the app/access is free if anyone wants to read it.

The city is offering people a hotel room and a $500 gift card to leave, offering to tow their rigs and dispose of them for free.

Sounds a mess.

 

[Happy Camper]

An article on the CNN app today about the estimated 11,000 people living in RV’s on the streets of Los Angeles.

I can’t get the link to copy, but the app/access is free if anyone wants to read it.

The city is offering people a hotel room and a $500 gift card to leave, offering to tow their rigs and dispose of them for free.

Sounds a mess.

Here you go:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/us/los-angeles-rv-dwellers/index.html

 

[eDJ_]

Reading thru this reminds me of the later 60's and a book by Dr. Paul Ehrlich Titled: The Population Bomb Dr. Ehrlich was an advocate for what he called Z.P.G. or zero population growth which at that time he believed could be achieved if each family limited themselves to two children. (ten years later the Chinese went to a policy of one child per family to deal with their population issues)

A couple of years later Alvin Toffler and his wife Adelaide wrote a ground shaking book titled, "Future Shock"

Much change began to take place by the 1960's There were 170,000,000 aprox people in 1960 where as by 2023 there were 334,233,854 as of Jan 1, 2021.

After the 1960's the income tax on the extremely wealthy began to be lowered thus providing additional funds to send their business holdings off shore, use offshore tax shelters, use offshore banks to laundry money and exponentially increase their wealth. This has allowed for purchasing political favor, and placing the people in office that they want to set policies they want. The average John or Jane Doe had 6% passbook savings interest at the Bank in that time but it began to vanish in these same years. But the wealthy had definitely enjoyed the windfall of WW2 supply production and for another ten years before competition from other countries reemerged. Automation has given way to AI today and both will likely merge together soon.

To have a personal memory of that tax-the-rich era, you now have to be well into your seventies. Back at the tail-end of that era, in the early 1960s, America's richest faced a 91 percent tax rate on income in the top tax bracket. That top rate had been hovering around 90 percent for the previous two decades

In 1957 a book some point to yet today was published. Somehow ironically the meaning is shifting away from the new rich (of the early 50's) to the new poor of today.