Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 95 posts

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#11

Post by enraged_camel »

grecy wrote: post #3
hiou wrote: post #2

> the former accountant ended up outdoors after a divorce and a brain tumor. Sounds like our current resource allocation system here in the US is working great! Seems like a totally sensible reason for a human being to be forced to live without basic shelter. They obviously have no useful skills to provide society so let's just throw them away. What a time to be alive!

It is truly sad that in by far the richest country in the world, and ostensibly the best, millions of people are living this way. Why on earth Americans are not fixing America, I have no idea.

Looks like the conservative crowd on HN is downvoting you, but that's probably because the truth makes them uncomfortable. The United States is by far the richest country in the entire history of the world. Every American should be deeply ashamed and embarrassed by the sheer number of people who don't have access to the most basic needs.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#12

Post by throwaway729 »

apsec112 wrote: post #10
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #8

Are the building codes really so restrictive as to prevent building housing for homeless people without ignoring them?

Yes. That's largely why they exist. Zoning codes were often created with an explicit goal of keeping poor/black people out of rich/white neighborhoods. https://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives/35889...

Not sure why you're being down-voted, other than that the evidence you provided isn't very compelling. For people who think this is hyperbole, it is not.

Zoning codes also exist for a lot of other (good) reasons, but there are large sections of zoning codes (esp. regarding the type of housing allowed within a residentially zoned area) that were absolutely created with explicitly and openly racist intent. Sometimes those sections of code are still with us today. Sometimes they've been removed. But in both cases, the effects of those zoning laws on communities reverberates today:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/02/zonings-racist-roots-s...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-raci...

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#13

Post by Symmetry »

throwaway729 wrote: post #12
apsec112 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That's largely why they exist. Zoning codes were often created with an explicit goal of keeping poor/black people out of rich/white neighborhoods. https://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives/35889...

Not sure why you're being down-voted, other than that the evidence you provided isn't very compelling. For people who think this is hyperbole, it is not. Zoning codes also exist for a lot of other (good) reasons, but there are large sections of zoning codes (esp. regarding the type of housing allowed within a residentially zoned area) that were absolutely created with explicitly and openly racist intent. Sometimes th…

Sometimes selfish rather than racist. I've had a discussion with a coworker from a suburb who was against a referendum on a state affordable housing law. He was worried it would let poor people move in and use his town's good schools without "paying their fair share." So there are lots of bad reasons for these rather than just racism.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#14

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

Symmetry wrote: post #13
throwaway729 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're being down-voted, other than that the evidence you provided isn't very compelling. For people who think this is hyperbole, it is not. Zoning codes also exist for a lot of other (good) reasons, but there are large sections of zoning codes (esp. regarding the type of housing allowed within a residentially zoned area) that were absolutely created with explicitly and openly racist intent. Sometimes th…

Sometimes selfish rather than racist. I've had a discussion with a coworker from a suburb who was against a referendum on a state affordable housing law. He was worried it would let poor people move in and use his town's good schools without "paying their fair share." So there are lots of bad reasons for these rather than just racism.

That's just classism rather than racism.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#15

Post by DiabloD3 »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #14
Symmetry wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes selfish rather than racist. I've had a discussion with a coworker from a suburb who was against a referendum on a state affordable housing law. He was worried it would let poor people move in and use his town's good schools without "paying their fair share." So there are lots of bad reasons for these rather than just racism.

That's just classism rather than racism.

When most of the lower class in a certain area in the US is non-white, they're both the same thing.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#16

Post by uxcn »

plandis wrote: post #6

Seattle has already been doing this for at least a year.

Seattle has set up more than one tiny house village [1], at least that I know of. Some of them even have internet access.

We still have a very real homeless problem though, and you'll see panhandlers if you drive through the city. People have even set up camps along I-5.

[1] http://www.kiro7.com/news/seattles-first-tiny-house-village-...

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#17

Post by Chronic9q »

uxcn wrote: post #16
plandis wrote: post #6

Seattle has already been doing this for at least a year.

Seattle has set up more than one tiny house village [1], at least that I know of. Some of them even have internet access. We still have a very real homeless problem though, and you'll see panhandlers if you drive through the city. People have even set up camps along I-5. [1] http://www.kiro7.com/news/seattles-first-tiny-house-village-...

Do democratic/left/liberal states generate or attract more homelessness? Seems to happen with many other liberal city hubs.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#18

Post by unethical_ban »

There are a lot of building codes that are incredibly stupid.

For things like this (homebuilding) where the competition is heavy and consumers have a choice (within a spending limit), I feel only the most bare of safety requirements should be law. All other standards related to efficiency, "above-and-beyond" safety and design considerations should be met and advertised via certifications.

Almost every zoning law probably has a good reason behind it, ostensibly. Someone died in a fire because there wasn't a window, so every room needs a window, for example. But if we legislated like that for every accident, we'd be suffocated by regulations.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#19

Post by shados »

ljf wrote: post #5
grecy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is truly sad that in by far the richest country in the world, and ostensibly the best, millions of people are living this way. Why on earth Americans are not fixing America, I have no idea.

As a Brit and a left leaning type, it baffles me to see America. From talking to friends who live there (I won't pretend I know fully) but it seems between income, state and property taxes you guys pay a lot. Add in health care and it seems you pay in line with or above many European countries. Yet with your society's wealth there seems a resistance to supporting your own people, and almost actively seeking to add to…

Well, most important is how inefficient the country is. All governments are corrupt: thats true in Europe, its true in Canada, but its 10x true in the US. It's no China or Russia, but its pretty bad.

Second, you said "resistance to supporting your own people". Well, even if you don't resist, thats very difficult because figuring out who "your own people" is, is nearly impossible here because of the immigration situation.

Regardless of stance on immigration, the fact is that the way to most efficiently reduce poverty will differ based on if someone has been here all along and got screwed, based on if they are refugees, or if they came by other means. You have to analyze the pipeline and allocate resources, people, and programs for both prevention, and for safety nets.

People make it so damn hard to differentiate and allocate logically, its impossible to be efficient there.

(Note that I'm a green card holder, I wasn't born in the US, so this is just what I'm seeing in polar contrast to my home country). When data is collected and surveys/analysis presented, most of the time everything will be mixed in without separating root causes (someone who fell into poverty because of medical bills, is a very different problem to solve than someone who came here being poor in the first place). And then there's the racism situation...

So authorities are left with 1 size fit all programs that get abused left and right, with corruption sprinkled in to make it harder. Yeah, its impossible to fix things this way.

Re: San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

#20

Post by mmmBacon »

ljf wrote: post #5
grecy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is truly sad that in by far the richest country in the world, and ostensibly the best, millions of people are living this way. Why on earth Americans are not fixing America, I have no idea.

As a Brit and a left leaning type, it baffles me to see America. From talking to friends who live there (I won't pretend I know fully) but it seems between income, state and property taxes you guys pay a lot. Add in health care and it seems you pay in line with or above many European countries. Yet with your society's wealth there seems a resistance to supporting your own people, and almost actively seeking to add to…

We pay almost 50% in taxes which I think is close to what you guys pay in Europe. The lions share goes to Washington where as far as I can tell it either evaporates or gets spent on very expensive jobs programs like the F-35. Our states do a better job generally and provide the bulk of the services. However in many cities and states the budgets are consumed by pensions leaving less for services each year. A person who works in government can retire with 80% pay at 55 after 20 years with their pension based on last 2 years. As people live longer, many people are collecting pensions for more years than they worked.

The problem is that we already pay a lot in taxes and we get poor returns on this money as it is. I think there would be more people willing to pay more if they thought money was the answer and it would help people. Most people think the money would just be wasted.

At the same time we also have large numbers of people who pay no taxes, 51%. So as our population grows, the demand for services increases but the percentage of tax paying citizens is not increasing.

We have a real mess here.

Post reply on HN