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

61–70 of 95 posts

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

#61

Post by joesmo »

noir_lord wrote: post #7
ljf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a fellow left leaning Brit the pull yourself up by the bootstraps thing always seemed strange, sometimes people just don't have the bootstraps to start with!

And, just as the literal interpretation of the phrase, the figurative interpretation is impossible (even if you have bootstraps). That's why it's not happening. It's enough though, for the masses of people to be stupid enough as they are in America to believe that this is possible to create such a messed up society.

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

#62

Post by 35bge57dtjku »

notliketherest wrote: post #27

This is a mistake. As soon as you allow squatters to essentially start building shanty town communities, you are going to start exacerbating a lot of problems: drugs, crime, rape. All one needs to do is travel to Brazil and see the favelas to see the effects of an unchecked, institutionalized homeless population.

People have pointed out that some crime concentrates in these tent cities in Seattle. But I have yet to hear evidence that it's actually creating more crime. And there's plenty of crime that happens outside of those places in Seattle, like a totally insane number of car break ins.

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

#63

Post by Redoubts »

nwenzel wrote: post #41

Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled, adults, children, or any other type of people) have a right to a home or some other minimum level of shelter? Seems like discussion on homelessness would be slightly easier if we started from first principles or at least some place where there is closer to a consensus.

Maybe, but does location of choice count as part of that minimum level?

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

#64

Post by bufordsharkley »

nwenzel wrote: post #41

Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled, adults, children, or any other type of people) have a right to a home or some other minimum level of shelter? Seems like discussion on homelessness would be slightly easier if we started from first principles or at least some place where there is closer to a consensus.

It's important to recognize that the problem isn't that shelter is expensive, but that land is expensive.

And to reframe the question, do all people have a right not to be excluded from land (without a commensurate payment)? I believe the answer is a resounding yes.

Note: I'm a Georgist. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

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

#65

Post by nkurz »

nwenzel wrote: post #41

Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled, adults, children, or any other type of people) have a right to a home or some other minimum level of shelter? Seems like discussion on homelessness would be slightly easier if we started from first principles or at least some place where there is closer to a consensus.

I don't know the answer, but I'd like to follow it up with the questions "And to what extent should location preference be accommodated? Does one have a right to continue to live where one was born? To live in the city of one's choice? Or is the right (if it exists) just to a safe place somewhere?"

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

notliketherest wrote: post #27

This is a mistake. As soon as you allow squatters to essentially start building shanty town communities, you are going to start exacerbating a lot of problems: drugs, crime, rape. All one needs to do is travel to Brazil and see the favelas to see the effects of an unchecked, institutionalized homeless population.

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by aphextron »

Am I alone in finding this "tiny home" trend insane? There's nothing wrong with downsizing, but just call it what it is: a mobile home or a trailer.

Companies have been engineering mobile homes for decades to be highly efficient, long lasting, and fuel efficient for towing. Slapping a bunch of heavy wooden shingles on one and calling it a "tiny home" is just feel-good hipster nonsense.

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

#68

Post by carapace »

nwenzel wrote: post #41

Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled, adults, children, or any other type of people) have a right to a home or some other minimum level of shelter? Seems like discussion on homelessness would be slightly easier if we started from first principles or at least some place where there is closer to a consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...

""" The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many people believe to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. The full text is published by the United Nations on its website.[1] """

[1] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...

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

#69

Post by runamok »

aphextron wrote: post #67

Am I alone in finding this "tiny home" trend insane? There's nothing wrong with downsizing, but just call it what it is: a mobile home or a trailer. Companies have been engineering mobile homes for decades to be highly efficient, long lasting, and fuel efficient for towing. Slapping a bunch of heavy wooden shingles on one and calling it a "tiny home" is just feel-good hipster nonsense.

Except that most cities criminalize living out of your vehicle. Renting a space to put your RV, mobile home, etc. is a non-trivial expense for many.

I read an article about how emotionally draining it was for people to constantly have to move around, worry about police, get hassled by residents, not know where they could shower or eat, etc. but I can't find it now. Not to mention I can't imagine how hard it is to fall asleep and actually rest with all those fears.

Some articles: http://mv-voice.com/news/2015/10/23/makeshift-rv-camps-spark... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/high-rents-force-silicon-vall... http://www.businessinsider.com/inside-the-silicon-valley-van... http://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2015/03/04/only-a... https://www.quora.com/When-living-out-of-your-car-where-are-... https://www.quora.com/When-living-out-of-your-car-where-are-... http://gawker.com/you-better-not-outlaw-living-in-cars-unles...

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

#70

Post by internaut »

carapace wrote: post #68
nwenzel wrote: post #41

Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled, adults, children, or any other type of people) have a right to a home or some other minimum level of shelter? Seems like discussion on homelessness would be slightly easier if we started from first principles or at least some place where there is closer to a consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... """ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many people believe to be the rights to which all human bei…

Most of the right do not recognize the UN as a moral authority.

I view the UN generally as 'not even wrong'.

With leftist propaganda, it is not what they say that matters. It is what they leave out.

They come up with things that sound to me like this:

"Everybody has the right to a chocolate bar, because chocolate bars are delicious and everybody ought to have one"

Then I think 'Well, that sounds like a nice thing' but who produces these bars of chocolate. How many bars? What are the limits on this new standard?

These kinds of questions are invariably never answered. You just get a bunch of blowhards leaping down your throat shouting about how you don't care about the children who never experienced the joys of chocolate or something.

Post reply on HN