If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS San Francisco)   San Jose to offer 'pods' to homeless people. Don't trust them, I've seen this movie before   (sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com) divider line 80
    More: Obvious, sci-fi, San Jose Leaders, San Jose, tags, homeless, emergency shelter  
•       •       •

4324 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2014 at 5:48 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-30 11:51:53 PM  
San Francisco, San Jose.

basically the same.
 
2014-04-30 11:54:18 PM  
Probably cost 2 grand a month in rent.
 
2014-04-30 11:59:22 PM  
Metro
Area
Temporary
Residence for
Indigent
Xenophobes

Please, have a seat. You might feel a slightly weird feeling in your neck. That's just Google rebooting your uh...display.
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-01 12:16:41 AM  

calbert: San Francisco, San Jose.

basically the same.


Sure, but this story is about San Jose, so what's your point?
 
2014-05-01 12:29:13 AM  

timujin: calbert: San Francisco, San Jose.

basically the same.

Sure, but this story is about San Jose, so what's your point?


headline originally said San Francisco.
 
2014-05-01 12:39:56 AM  

calbert: timujin: calbert: San Francisco, San Jose.

basically the same.

Sure, but this story is about San Jose, so what's your point?

headline originally said San Francisco.


you never know when you're gonna get pwned by an admin
 
2014-05-01 12:43:45 AM  
It's far better to be living in a small home that you can call your own than to be living in a creek

I would imagine living in a creek would be kinda damp.
 
2014-05-01 12:51:33 AM  

fusillade762: It's far better to be living in a small home that you can call your own than to be living in a creek

I would imagine living in a creek would be kinda damp.



Not to mention that bears will try to eat you during mating season.
 
2014-05-01 01:41:20 AM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-05-01 02:15:41 AM  
what's wrong with shipping containers and porta-potties ?

no really
step 1) ANYTHING is better than sleeping on the street
step 2) now that you have a place to call your own, in theory help can be made available to move on to the next step

alas, what percentage of homeless are the mentally ill?
sigh
 
2014-05-01 02:45:24 AM  

timujin: calbert: timujin: calbert: San Francisco, San Jose.

basically the same.

Sure, but this story is about San Jose, so what's your point?

headline originally said San Francisco.

you never know when you're gonna get pwned by an admin


Calbert is FARK royalty? I believe it.

/funny guy

//obscure?
media.npr.org
 
2014-05-01 03:35:59 AM  
A company already makes some pretty cool micro-homes -- WWW.tumbleweedhouses.com -- but they have everything and are usually made of wood mounted on a trailer.

Average cost: $23,000. Kinda steep.

The dwellings can be built for about $5,000. They are typically under 150 square feet, with no running water. Bathrooms and kitchens would be communal

I see a problem with this. Especially the water and bathroom part. What if you have the runs during a thunder storm? What if you're sick and throwing up and too weak to drag yourself across the yards to the communal can? I foresee the unwelcome appearance of plastic bottles filled with urine and trash bags loaded with shiat. Most folks will probably buy 5 gallon water jugs, fill them up and keep them in their homes.

I also see problems in communal bathrooms. (Decades ago, my family had a small travel trailer and we stopped at trailer camps while traveling on vacation. Many had communal bathrooms/showers. For a kid, going in there at late night was a bit scary. Today, a parent would have to accompany them. Not to mention that periodically, folks came in who were loud and annoying.

I suspect small camping toilets will make an appearance, whose holding tanks will be dumped down the communal toilet, blue liquid and all. Other types of camping toilets consist of a seat and a plastic bag. Naturally, the bag will wind up in the garbage bins.

No kitchen might be fine, but, again, I've been around group kitchens and there have been squabbles and fights over who is taking up too many burners, who leaves the sinks dirty, who stole food from the refrigerators that didn't belong to them and who was taking up too much space in the refrigerators to begin with.

Then there were squabbles and fights over the scent of meals being cooked. (Certain Korean Dishes taste real good, but stink like heck when being cooked.)

Then, people get into each others way, inevitably someone will have their kids with them, who will get into things and then the parents will get all pi$$ed off when someone else suggests they need to smack their little terrors with a frying pan.

I figure these homes will have minimal wiring so they might not be able to hold more than a small, college dorm sized refrigerator. Maybe they'll be able to support a space heater, a TV and a few lights. Probably not even a window a/c unit though.

The smart ones will buy hot plates. Others will get camp stoves. A lot of folks will want to get up in the morning and make a cup of coffee at least.

Installing a cheap, minimal kitchen is easy, but running water to each unit would be expensive. The sinks could empty in something like a buried 55 gallon cement cistern in lieu of a sewer. Old 55 gallon tanks sprayed with Tough Coat would last years and have holes punched in the bottom to drain. Plus, it would be mainly used for the kitchen drain.

Their idea is good, but without running water, a mini-kitchen and a basic toilet, chances are many recipients will wind up going back out and living in tents in the woods.

At least there they can take a dump in a hole, have a fire to cook over and not worry about neighbors ripping them off.
 
2014-05-01 05:56:45 AM  
What is that, some kind of pod?
mmimageslarge.moviemail-online.co.uk
 
2014-05-01 06:04:50 AM  
Eh, those look pretty roomy. Bigger than my first apartment, that's for sure.

namedropping.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-05-01 06:09:03 AM  
www.denzelig.com
 
2014-05-01 06:09:13 AM  
You haveto make 30$/hr to afford an apartment in san jose? Holy crap. How do people in cali manage to survive?
 
2014-05-01 06:14:14 AM  
i60.tinypic.com
A pot?!

/ What in the hell is a jimp?
// obscure?
 
2014-05-01 06:33:25 AM  

Jaws_Victim: You haveto make 30$/hr to afford an apartment in san jose? Holy crap. How do people in cali manage to survive?


We don't. We're turning to dust.
 
2014-05-01 06:39:49 AM  

namatad: step 1) ANYTHING is better than sleeping on the street


A lot of homeless prefer sleeping on the street because shelters will not permit drugs or alcohol.
 
2014-05-01 06:53:19 AM  

Ishkur: namatad: step 1) ANYTHING is better than sleeping on the street

A lot of homeless prefer sleeping on the street because shelters will not permit drugs or alcohol.


You have no real clue on this subject, do you?
 
2014-05-01 06:54:31 AM  
Ding Ding Ding!
 
2014-05-01 06:59:54 AM  

JoieD'Zen: Ishkur: namatad: step 1) ANYTHING is better than sleeping on the street

A lot of homeless prefer sleeping on the street because shelters will not permit drugs or alcohol.

You have no real clue on this subject, do you?


This is my experience also, from volunteering in a soup kitchen and from talking to people who ask me for money. It's possible that it's true for a certain percentage of people, but not universally true.
 
2014-05-01 07:08:14 AM  

Jaws_Victim: You haveto make 30$/hr to afford an apartment in san jose? Holy crap. How do people in cali manage to survive?


I didn't.  I moved to Texas and learned to say Y'all ;)
 
2014-05-01 07:12:42 AM  

untaken_name: JoieD'Zen: Ishkur: namatad: step 1) ANYTHING is better than sleeping on the street

A lot of homeless prefer sleeping on the street because shelters will not permit drugs or alcohol.

You have no real clue on this subject, do you?

This is my experience also, from volunteering in a soup kitchen and from talking to people who ask me for money. It's possible that it's true for a certain percentage of people, but not universally true.


Shelters can be a nightmare and there are plenty of drugs to be had in most of them, as well as disease, bedbugs, staff with control issues, and theft.
 
2014-05-01 07:19:22 AM  

JoieD'Zen: Shelters can be a nightmare and there are plenty of drugs to be had in most of them, as well as disease, bedbugs, staff with control issues, and theft.


Yes, but they can also be relatively clean and nice, but with rules that people are unwilling to follow. I have seen that personally. I'm just saying that perhaps the issue is a bit more complex than you inferred, and there is certainly room for the viewpoints you've expressed to be true for some people while the views Ishkur expressed can be true for others. If you knew anything about the history of Ishkur's antipathy toward me, you would realize that it really, really pains me to stand up for him. However, in this instance, he is correct for at least some percentage of the homeless population.
 
2014-05-01 07:21:37 AM  
namedropping.files.wordpress.com
Hey, at least it's spacious...
 
2014-05-01 07:23:49 AM  

untaken_name: JoieD'Zen: Shelters can be a nightmare and there are plenty of drugs to be had in most of them, as well as disease, bedbugs, staff with control issues, and theft.

Yes, but they can also be relatively clean and nice, but with rules that people are unwilling to follow. I have seen that personally. I'm just saying that perhaps the issue is a bit more complex than you inferred, and there is certainly room for the viewpoints you've expressed to be true for some people while the views Ishkur expressed can be true for others. If you knew anything about the history of Ishkur's antipathy toward me, you would realize that it really, really pains me to stand up for him. However, in this instance, he is correct for at least some percentage of the homeless population.


40% +/- on the substance abuse.
This estimate is coming from Seattle where we have legal recreational and medical marijuana, if that makes any difference. Medical users don't go into my estimates.
 
2014-05-01 07:27:29 AM  

Ishkur: namatad: step 1) ANYTHING is better than sleeping on the street

A lot of homeless prefer sleeping on the street because shelters will not permit drugs or alcohol.


i have my own place because i really like drugs and alcohol. have a nice job helps a bit.
 
2014-05-01 07:30:13 AM  

JoieD'Zen: untaken_name: JoieD'Zen: Shelters can be a nightmare and there are plenty of drugs to be had in most of them, as well as disease, bedbugs, staff with control issues, and theft.

Yes, but they can also be relatively clean and nice, but with rules that people are unwilling to follow. I have seen that personally. I'm just saying that perhaps the issue is a bit more complex than you inferred, and there is certainly room for the viewpoints you've expressed to be true for some people while the views Ishkur expressed can be true for others. If you knew anything about the history of Ishkur's antipathy toward me, you would realize that it really, really pains me to stand up for him. However, in this instance, he is correct for at least some percentage of the homeless population.

40% +/- on the substance abuse.
This estimate is coming from Seattle where we have legal recreational and medical marijuana, if that makes any difference. Medical users don't go into my estimates.


No one cares about weed. The problem is heroin/methadone and/or meth usage. People won't stop using them and it's not like they give a flying f** about anyone else while they're using either.

SF tried "Care, not Cash" but it turned out that a significant population didn't want the Care. All they wanted was their next fix, and didn't care where they slept. I'm not saying it was a complete failure, but the only way to wipe out the problem doesn't come with a solution other than taking away someone's freedom (which is obviously problematic on its own).
 
2014-05-01 07:45:41 AM  
Alice Garden Pods, affordable, convenient, and located in the heart of Hengsha.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-05-01 07:50:38 AM  

JoieD'Zen: You have no real clue on this subject, do you?


That's the policy in Vancouver, having worked at one.
 
2014-05-01 07:53:11 AM  

untaken_name: If you knew anything about the history of Ishkur's antipathy toward me,


Oh come now, I don't hate you. I just think you're wrong most of the time.

Interestingly, this seems to be one of those rare instances where we're in agreement. brb, gone to check weather.
 
2014-05-01 07:56:46 AM  
I think such micro-housing is an earnest attempt to offer a solution, but to the wrong problem.   Based on work I've done supporting social workers, a large number of homeless people -  certainly not all, but a goodly number - have various mental problems, and a common feature of these problems is a highly developed fear of using the kinds of spaces most of us would welcome, if we had no shelter.  Even where more common type overnight communal shelters are available, this segment of the homeless population isn't able to stand living in close proximity to others.  Indeed, in the research we did, a number of the mentally ill homeless had families and friends with homes or apartments that could put them up, but the homeless had paranoia or some other driving motivation that made it impossible for them to come "home".

Building a row of micro-shelters is well-intentioned, but this subset of the homeless population wouldn't want to use them, preferring to carve out a more isolated area that "feels safe" to them.  If they had access to regular doctor care and the right med, many of them could return to more normal ways of living (that was the core of the program we were working on).  Without meds, they get too flakey to show up for regular medical care, even free care -  and they don't show up for counseling, training, or other help to re-integrate into society with any real self-sufficiency.

And while I wouldn't oppose building these things flat-out, it may well be that a simpler and more cost-effective solution is to re-use excess existing housing capacity with subsidized rents, which spreads the population out a bit more and doesn't create a "ghetto" of temporary squatter shacks. A combination of hiring more social workers to be out in the field, helping these homeless people out, plus the subsidized existing housing, I think would help more people for less overall money.


This is of course a separate area of the problem, apart from people who are purely economically disadvantaged ; lost a job and couldn't pay rent or mortgage, etc, - or those displaced by domestic violence, or the many, MANY who come out of the prison system with inadequate means to re-integrate and make a living.   For all of those, some temporary shacks might help, but again, they are in my opinion a well-intentioned but ineffective treatment of a symptom, but not the cause.

I of course would entertain any opposing views.
 
2014-05-01 08:26:38 AM  
It's a good idea, but doing "microhouses" seems like kind of a waste of space, doesn't it?  I mean, you could fit more people on the same land with a multi-story building.  Why not build, say, a five-story building with the same kind of layout (small, single-room dwellings with communal restrooms and bathing facilities on each floor)?
 
2014-05-01 08:28:18 AM  
While I personally live in a smaller home and think they have good uses, many of the commenters above have nailed why something like this won't be a panacea.

Group co housing requires a certain amount OD comradarie to work, which requires trust and a certain tolerance.

A fair percentage of the homeless are just too unstable to manage this, and they do tend to be hard core homeless, not the temporarily embarrassed kind.

That is NOT to say that something like this could not work, but I do agree that these units need at least a toilet and rudimentary kitchens.

I see a variation on this as awesome college housing etc.

Lived and worked in SF.  Have seen homeless problem there.  No easy solutions.
 
2014-05-01 08:30:26 AM  
Make that "certain amount of comradarie". Durn iPad.
 
2014-05-01 08:31:41 AM  

bmwericus: No easy solutions.


Oh.  There are always easy solutions.

Now, easy and humane?  That's a different story.
 
2014-05-01 08:33:34 AM  

Jaws_Victim: You haveto make 30$/hr to afford an apartment in san jose? Holy crap. How do people in cali manage to survive?


They don't live in San Jose.

/this is why Californians have commutes that are measured in hours.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-05-01 08:39:38 AM  
OMG...  LIBURUL waaarrggbl

People will be becoming homeless to get a nice home!
 
2014-05-01 08:42:00 AM  

Any Pie Left: I think such micro-housing is an earnest attempt to offer a solution, but to the wrong problem.   Based on work I've done supporting social workers, a large number of homeless people -  certainly not all, but a goodly number - have various mental problems, and a common feature of these problems is a highly developed fear of using the kinds of spaces most of us would welcome, if we had no shelter.  Even where more common type overnight communal shelters are available, this segment of the homeless population isn't able to stand living in close proximity to others.  Indeed, in the research we did, a number of the mentally ill homeless had families and friends with homes or apartments that could put them up, but the homeless had paranoia or some other driving motivation that made it impossible for them to come "home".

Building a row of micro-shelters is well-intentioned, but this subset of the homeless population wouldn't want to use them, preferring to carve out a more isolated area that "feels safe" to them.  If they had access to regular doctor care and the right med, many of them could return to more normal ways of living (that was the core of the program we were working on).  Without meds, they get too flakey to show up for regular medical care, even free care -  and they don't show up for counseling, training, or other help to re-integrate into society with any real self-sufficiency.

And while I wouldn't oppose building these things flat-out, it may well be that a simpler and more cost-effective solution is to re-use excess existing housing capacity with subsidized rents, which spreads the population out a bit more and doesn't create a "ghetto" of temporary squatter shacks. A combination of hiring more social workers to be out in the field, helping these homeless people out, plus the subsidized existing housing, I think would help more people for less overall money.


This is of course a separate area of the problem, apart from people who are purely economically ...


All of these.

For a TL;DR: the reason we have so many homeless people in this country is not because we have an affordable housing shortage.  The lion's share of the cause is our gutted mental health system.
 
2014-05-01 08:42:17 AM  
media.tumblr.com
Potato?
 
2014-05-01 08:46:44 AM  

GoldSpider: [media.tumblr.com image 500x333]
Potato?


This potato's got big ears.  It's a whole buffet.
 
2014-05-01 08:52:17 AM  
www.joelroston.com
 
2014-05-01 08:58:03 AM  
Seriously this is not a bad idea. I might just suggest this to local leadership here, as we have a bit of a problem with homelessness.
 
2014-05-01 08:59:28 AM  

Any Pie Left: I think such micro-housing is an earnest attempt to offer a solution, but to the wrong problem.   Based on work I've done supporting social workers, a large number of homeless people -  certainly not all, but a goodly number - have various mental problems, and a common feature of these problems is a highly developed fear of using the kinds of spaces most of us would welcome, if we had no shelter.  Even where more common type overnight communal shelters are available, this segment of the homeless population isn't able to stand living in close proximity to others.  Indeed, in the research we did, a number of the mentally ill homeless had families and friends with homes or apartments that could put them up, but the homeless had paranoia or some other driving motivation that made it impossible for them to come "home".

Building a row of micro-shelters is well-intentioned, but this subset of the homeless population wouldn't want to use them, preferring to carve out a more isolated area that "feels safe" to them.  If they had access to regular doctor care and the right med, many of them could return to more normal ways of living (that was the core of the program we were working on).  Without meds, they get too flakey to show up for regular medical care, even free care -  and they don't show up for counseling, training, or other help to re-integrate into society with any real self-sufficiency.

And while I wouldn't oppose building these things flat-out, it may well be that a simpler and more cost-effective solution is to re-use excess existing housing capacity with subsidized rents, which spreads the population out a bit more and doesn't create a "ghetto" of temporary squatter shacks. A combination of hiring more social workers to be out in the field, helping these homeless people out, plus the subsidized existing housing, I think would help more people for less overall money.


This is of course a separate area of the problem, apart from people who are purely economically ...


I don't disagree with anything you said, and indeed, anybody who thinks this will solve the entire homeless problem is fooling themselves.  But at the same time, it would be a big help for some of the people (the non-mentally-ill, or at least less mentally-ill, ones) just to have a space to call their own and a place to get mail. It's a great way to get them integrated into society again.  It may not solve all the problems, but it solves at least one of them.
 
2014-05-01 08:59:48 AM  

yukichigai: Any Pie Left: I think such micro-housing is an earnest attempt to offer a solution, but to the wrong problem.   Based on work I've done supporting social workers, a large number of homeless people -  certainly not all, but a goodly number - have various mental problems, and a common feature of these problems is a highly developed fear of using the kinds of spaces most of us would welcome, if we had no shelter.  Even where more common type overnight communal shelters are available, this segment of the homeless population isn't able to stand living in close proximity to others.  Indeed, in the research we did, a number of the mentally ill homeless had families and friends with homes or apartments that could put them up, but the homeless had paranoia or some other driving motivation that made it impossible for them to come "home".

Building a row of micro-shelters is well-intentioned, but this subset of the homeless population wouldn't want to use them, preferring to carve out a more isolated area that "feels safe" to them.  If they had access to regular doctor care and the right med, many of them could return to more normal ways of living (that was the core of the program we were working on).  Without meds, they get too flakey to show up for regular medical care, even free care -  and they don't show up for counseling, training, or other help to re-integrate into society with any real self-sufficiency.

And while I wouldn't oppose building these things flat-out, it may well be that a simpler and more cost-effective solution is to re-use excess existing housing capacity with subsidized rents, which spreads the population out a bit more and doesn't create a "ghetto" of temporary squatter shacks. A combination of hiring more social workers to be out in the field, helping these homeless people out, plus the subsidized existing housing, I think would help more people for less overall money.


This is of course a separate area of the problem, apart from people who are purel ...


Mental health care wasn't gutted here, but we still have homeless people. It's not a problem that goes away unless you work directly on it; saying "it's a mental health issue" ignores that A) it's an issue separate from mental health, and B) that mental health care alone doesn't house people, and some people simply are too broken to work.
 
2014-05-01 09:04:40 AM  

Any Pie Left: I think such micro-housing is an earnest attempt to offer a solution, but to the wrong problem. Based on work I've done supporting social workers, a large number of homeless people - certainly not all, but a goodly number - have various mental problems, and a common feature of these problems is a highly developed fear of using the kinds of spaces most of us would welcome, if we had no shelter.


Well not only that, this is San Jose FFS.  These things would make a lot more sense here in the Northeast where rent can be just as high and the winters are no joke.  What's the danger, that these people get a little bit damp?  TFA said four people died of exposure last year but I figure they represent the very left end of the bell curve when it comes to frail constitutions and horrible addictions.

I don't see anything that says living in these are compulsory, though.  In some cases a parent would like nothing more than to give a kid a sense of normalcy.  There is a huge emotional difference between being raised in a tent or car vs. being raised in something that looks like a home.  If a family is about to be evicted, they can look at that and say, "Well, it's definitely a downgrade but I can put my kids in that while we try to get back on our feet."

Otherwise, some people just aren't normal.  We can consider them mentally ill and I'd say most are, but two considerations are the limited resources of society and the individual's willingness to change.  In these cases I'd call it misguided to throw money and call upon them to put an immense effort into changing their way of life just so it resembles ours'.  To them, being homeless is far and away the lesser of two evils (even if the other is horrible demons in their heads), and "fixing" that is ethically questionable if we know damn well it's not practical.  I wouldn't demonize them as "slackers" like the sociopathic right do, so I'm not saying we abandon them entirely.  But if all it takes is a cheap tent to keep them dry while they live in ways that don't give them a panic attack, that's probably the most reasonable solution.
 
2014-05-01 09:05:22 AM  

Jaws_Victim: You haveto make 30$/hr to afford an apartment in san jose? Holy crap. How do people in cali manage to survive?


They don't, hence the mass migration from Cali to Colorado and Texas.
 
2014-05-01 09:07:21 AM  

yukichigai: For a TL;DR: the reason we have so many homeless people in this country is not because we have an affordable housing shortage.  The lion's share of the cause is our gutted mental health system.


To be fair, what guts the mental health system is only being able to hold the violent people against their will, but if their medication makes them better, they can be let go... and then you see we're back to where we started.

I can only think of ankle (tracking) bracelets being some sort of solution:
1) Wear ankle bracelet
2) Get access to three meals a day + shower + bed + security
3) OK to keep money and score somewhere other than shelter
4) Don't mess with other people or their property
5) ***Come and go*** on own terms

Cut off ankle bracelet and get detained for 72 hours (obviously when they come back or get picked up for a crime). Choice is theirs to wear bracelet again, or not get access to the above.

There are still the complete paranoids that will refuse. And if they're non-violent, there's absolutely nothing one can do.

Yeah, it costs money. But it's less than jail, and at least the person can be monitored health-wise and have options available.
 
2014-05-01 09:08:34 AM  
This is what I see as the end result.
img.fark.net
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report