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  
•       •       •

4320 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2014 at 5:48 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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
 
2014-05-01 09:08:45 AM
Can't we just build big buildings with individual rooms that have doors that lock on the outside. Lots of cameras to monitor these guys, three meals a day, people to protect them from themselves and each other, isolated from society, and free health care. Can't we just build and put them in communal containment for their own good?
 
2014-05-01 09:15:29 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Can't we just build big buildings with individual rooms that have doors that lock on the outside. Lots of cameras to monitor these guys, three meals a day, people to protect them from themselves and each other, isolated from society, and free health care. Can't we just build and put them in communal containment for their own good?


Sounds great! But first, define what gets these people locked up. Oh wait, you're talking about a jail. What crime did they commit that gets them a life sentence?

/not sure if serious
 
2014-05-01 09:28:13 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?


That's  $60K.
About $40K after taxes, or about $20 an hour take home.

Garden sheds are your future, people.
 
2014-05-01 09:28:34 AM
And the mini-fridge in the pods is filled with...

www.moviemonstermuseum.com
 
2014-05-01 09:35:08 AM

calbert: San Francisco, San Jose.

basically the same.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-05-01 09:48:31 AM
It just must be that Nannys are bred stupid.

Pods will not work.

Better doorways would be nice.
 
2014-05-01 09:49:43 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Can't we just build big buildings with individual rooms that have doors that lock on the outside. Lots of cameras to monitor these guys, three meals a day, people to protect them from themselves and each other, isolated from society, and free health care. Can't we just build and put them in communal containment for their own good?


Oh, you mean like a prison or sumptin?
 
2014-05-01 10:13:15 AM

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


Riiiight. Don't go getting all soft on me just because I defended you. I always stand up for what I believe is right. Also, in closing, "I thought I was wrong, once, but I was mistaken."
 
2014-05-01 10:34:59 AM

Lonewolfe: This is what I see as the end result.


That is what it's like already.

One encampment ("the jungle") already has 300 people, apparently it's the largest in the us.

San jose is being sued by the water district because the creeks are becoming polluted by the homeless.
 
2014-05-01 10:39:10 AM

snocone: Slaves2Darkness: Can't we just build big buildings with individual rooms that have doors that lock on the outside. Lots of cameras to monitor these guys, three meals a day, people to protect them from themselves and each other, isolated from society, and free health care. Can't we just build and put them in communal containment for their own good?

Oh, you mean like a prison or sumptin?


I prefer "camp", where individuals are gathered, or "concentrated" if you will...
 
2014-05-01 10:44:03 AM
Garden shed concentration camps!
Pure genius!

/Who's a good little fascist?!
 
2014-05-01 11:41:48 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Garden shed concentration camps!
Pure genius!

/Who's a good little fascist?!


It is possible we will have a housing glut, iff'n they let the marijuana convicts out.

Maybe if you had bus service, you could offer sort of a voluntary Nite Care thingie???
 
m00
2014-05-01 12:19:40 PM

Any Pie Left: 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.


Have you worked in an area where you can't rent a place on a wage less than $30/hour. During an economic recession life can get ugly, even for skilled workers in a sensible field. I'm fortunate that if things ever get that tough for me, I have family and could swallow my pride and go to them for help. But it's pure luck I'm in that situation.
 
2014-05-01 12:21:19 PM

Any Pie Left: it may well be that a simpler and more cost-effective solution is to re-use excess existing housing capacity with subsidized rents


But that's SOCIALISM!!!! Isn't it better to let them sleep in the alleys while empty houses fall down from disuse?!?

HeartBurnKid: 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)?


You're right, that's better. They used to have those all over, called SROs; I lived in a few. Adding small kitchens on each floor would be good too, though most people would still be content with coffee makers and microwaves most of the time. (It's painful to watch people who have full kitchens fill grocery carts with TV dinners and frozen pizza, but cooking seems to be on its way out.)

dragonchild: 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.


You want to be reasonable? About this? What planet are you from?

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

Riiiight. Don't go getting all soft on me just because I defended you. I always stand up for what I believe is right. Also, in closing, "I thought I was wrong, once, but I was mistaken."


GET A ROOM!!!
 
2014-05-01 12:30:15 PM

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


Maybe in a nice apartment, I live in Santa Clara, I don't make that much, my apartment isn't ghetto, but it isn't exactly posh either.
 
2014-05-01 12:33:40 PM
What about in a van down by the river, in this case the Guadalupe.
 
2014-05-01 01:07:49 PM

Wake Up Sheeple: 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).


The "street people"- that subset of the homeless that begs on the street and causes the vast majority of the trash and problems, wouldn't be out there doing what they do, if it weren't for bleeding-heart types who hand them money.

My solution: anyone observed handing out money would be held directly responsible for the side-effects.   It's just like feeding pigeons; people doing it should be held accountable for the clean-up.   Calculate the cost of the trash-cleanup, police and EMS calls, shelter costs, etc. and send bills out directly to the do-gooders.  Maybe once they realize that handing money to street people doesn't really "help" them, and instead enables bad behavior that ends up costing us all, they might stop the handouts.   Once the handouts stop, these people will move on.
 
2014-05-01 01:08:11 PM
Are these really more cost effective than a large building full of apartments that are each the same size?
 
2014-05-01 01:32:02 PM
I just finished a 3600 mile road trip through Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, and everywhere I went I saw small towns half empty.  Houses stand vacant with $5000 pricetags, no one wants to live there.

It would be easy enough to relocate the homeless to small towns, charge them $50 a month mortgage on a discount, and let them live where their monthly checks would go farther.

It is actually so bad, Libertarians are advocating socialism because it's better than what we have right now.

3 million homeless in Amerika, 18 million vacant houses?  You do the math.
 
m00
2014-05-01 01:32:36 PM

htomc: Wake Up Sheeple: 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).

The "street people"- that subset of the homeless that begs on the street and causes the vast majority of the trash and problems, wouldn't be out there doing what they do, if it weren't for bleeding-heart types who hand them money.

My solution: anyone observed handing out money would be held directly responsible for the side-effects.   It's just like feeding pigeons; people doing it should be held accountable for the clean-up.   Calculate the cost of the trash-cleanup, police and EMS calls, shelter costs, etc. and send bills out directly to the do-gooders.  Maybe once they realize that handing money to street people doesn't really "help" them, and instead enables bad behavior that ends up costing us all, they might stop the handouts.   Once the handouts stop, these people will move on.


8/10 :)
 
2014-05-01 01:38:36 PM
When I worked in an oil field boom town I got sick of paying premium apartment rates to live in a flophouse, so I bought a 23' travel trailer for $2600.

Lived in it 3 and 1/2 years, sold it for $2300.

Works out to around $0.28 per day, quite affordable.
 
2014-05-01 01:41:50 PM
It's a solution to a problem that plagues many cities.First, you give the homeless a place to stay, then the clamoring for infrastructure starts. When I lived in Texas, there were one of the long term low income housing areas of the city, the Victoria Courts. In my opinion, it was a hell-hole, but to many it was home. The cops had a standing order to have units on patrol there 24/7. Finally, the city shunted the people out, making a deal with Sheraton to build a hotel there, moving people out. The backlash, people saying they had a right to live there, some claiming they were the 4th generation to live there, so they felt they had a right to be there. Finally the city moved the whole area up to the North side, having the residents there complain of having that blight moved to their neighborhood. I've noticed in years past, visits to the malls in the area are decidedly lower scale now. Many residents see it as trying to cover up an unsightly blemish on a city, but many of those on assistance see it as a right.
You don't expect people to be dependent on the government teat, but it happens.
 You work so hard to get to a better level of life, and some don't, yet expect the same.
 
m00
2014-05-01 02:09:10 PM

Ex-Texan: You don't expect people to be dependent on the government teat, but it happens.


You mean like Wall Street banks? It's not like I can go get a piece of land, not pay taxes on it, build a house and work the land and eat food I grow. Because property tax. Because building code permits. Because regulations on land use. For better or worse, to live in society you need money that is only issued by banks at the behest of the government. Because government requires you to have money so that it can take it from you.

When you consider that even EBT cards (welfare) is administered by banks that make a hefty profit from it, I don't think the real welfare queens are people. Unless by people you mean corporations, which according to the CBO 50% of the largest ones haven't paid any taxes for decades. GE gets 2 billion from the government every year in tax rebates. Taxpayers subsidize large corporations that are already making billions in profits already.

But yeah, the problem is the homeless...
 
2014-05-01 02:22:41 PM

HeartBurnKid: I don't disagree with anything you said


I do.

I admit I don't have statistics or numbers, but i have been seeing the whole "homeless people want to be homeless" meme before.  Both it and its usual sources have the stink of "math conservatives do to make themselves feel better" all over them.

I could be wrong, but without a better source than "some bloke on the internets" I still question the base assumption.
 
2014-05-01 02:51:40 PM

Lonewolfe: This is what I see as the end result.
[img.fark.net image 552x402]


Pretty much. It would be more cost effective to buy an older hotel and turn it into SRO for homeless people. The facility already has the spaces needed for social workers to come do their things.  It wouldn't be perfect, but it would help at least some of the people who are currently sleeping in cars, or the ER.

People keep forgetting that the driving force behind eliminating the state mental hospitals was the Kennedys, whose sister was imprisoned in one.  They also forget that these places were absolute hellholes.  Closing them was hailed as a huge step forward. It was assumed that smaller facilities and families would gladly take up the slack. And I know that cleaning up this mess is going to create another, unintended one somewhere along the way.
 
2014-05-01 02:54:40 PM

olddinosaur: 3 million homeless in Amerika, 18 million vacant houses?  You do the math.


Problem is, the implied "solution" would be a good way to insure that there will soon be 0 vacant houses, and still have an awful lot of homeless.

Ever seen any of the campsites and makeshift slums where the people that beg on the street corners often stay?
They are absolute disaster areas.   It's sad but true that some of those people are in the circumstances they are in, primarily as a result of their own poor decisions and actions.   I don't doubt that some are truly mentally ill and can't help it.  Regardless of the cause, these people are destructive toward everything around them.   There's a reason that shelters and housing projects tend to turn into hell-holes, fit only for demolition after a short period of occupancy.  Some people "consume" dwellings- any landlord knows exactly what I mean.
 
2014-05-01 03:13:41 PM
I live in the Bum Capital of America, which is sometimes known as Santa Cruz.  Bums suck and there's no real solution to the problem (each new idea is more expensive and dumber than the previous).  The more you help them, the more they multiply.  Don't like me?  I don't care, don't believe me, visit Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz and make your own call.
 
2014-05-01 03:24:44 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: People like you (people who seem to think it's a good idea to take away all social programs in the hopes that the problem will move elsewhere) are sick. You are sociopaths. Please get help.


What's sociopathic is throwing millions and millions of dollars at problems that persist for decades, with little or nothing to show for it.   Just how many municipalities have launched much-ballyoo'd "Campaign to End Homeless" initiatives, only to have it fizzle out after a short period?  answer: plenty.

It doesn't seem to matter how much money you have, or how noble you might think your intentions may be.  Some people just can't be helped, because they aren't willing to help themselves.  It would be nice if reality was different in that regard, but it isn't.  Sure, help the ones who truly can be helped.   But we need to have enough wisdom to realize that it just won't work for everyone, and what limited resources we have don't need to be thrown down a black hole.
 
2014-05-01 04:13:42 PM

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


Afford means spend 30% or less of income.  Which on $60K of income, means that you're spending $20K/year on taxes and $18,000 on rent.  $22K in CA is nothing, but that's more than a lot of people I know with like actual houses and middle-class lives.

Functionally, most people won't let you rent once you're over 1/2.4th of your pre-tax income, so 42%-ish.
/Oh, and 50-something professionals making $400K/year have roommates.  It's THAT farked up out here.
//So build 1 Million new housing units, fark the NIMBY's, fark the Environmental Impact Report (Mildly fark Obama for strengthening the EIR), and drop a couple hundred billion dollars on new housing and better transit.
 
2014-05-02 04:52:06 AM

The One True TheDavid: GET A ROOM!!!


If you pay for the room, you can watch.
 
Displayed 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report