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

Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 254 posts

Re: Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness

#71

Post by Fellshard »

grogenaut wrote: post #47
Fellshard wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solutions proposed by the Seattle City Council are to aid and abet addictive habits, and to pursue 'more of the same' for every policy that put things where they are today. No amount of tax money they would receive would fix the problem, because they have shown they cannot spend it competently.

Care to elaborate and point to specific policies? Are you referring to safe injection sites or something else?

That's the primary example, yes. This in addition to curbing police enforcement of actual drug use and possession, from what I've heard in reporting and from officers themselves.

One anecdote I've heard through my brother, who has been in law enforcement and monitors things in our old home region. He told me an officer he knew left the force because those types of restrictions were becoming untenable to deal with. Secondhand, so take this, too, with a grain of salt.

Re: Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness

#72

Post by berberous »

dgzl wrote: post #67

I'm from a small town in Oregon that sees a lot of nomadic traveling folk, either homeless or lifestyle (the PCT comes through the area, for instance), and the town is generally pretty receptive of these people. Growing up I would hang out and spend time with them, just chatting and playing music and enjoying the area. I carried that to adulthood and I now live in Portland, where the homeless problem is quite severe.…

On the last bit, that was all over the news for a while. CA and NV had a big fight over it:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-reaches-400k-settlement-proposa...

Re: Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness

#74

Post by Fellshard »

pmiller2 wrote: post #49
Fellshard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should not hide the problem, and we also should not elevate it to 'a valid lifestyle'. Surely we can try to find other options between those two.

What’s the problem with someone of sound mind ( i.e. not due to mental illness or addiction) living on the streets by choice? The only issues I have are that sanitation is a problem, and the places we force them into are not safe for them, or for non-homeless people, for that matter. Would you criminalize someone who’s eternally “backpacking through Europe,” metaphorically speaking? No one should be forced to live on…

Sanitation, and sometimes (though certainly extremely rarely) infrastructure damage, as seen in the 2017 collapse of an Atlanta overpass. I don't think this is the best point to argue on, especially as it's arguing from extremes, but it's a point to consider if more examples crop up. I've heard of similar fires starting in Seattle, but with less risk since the're not being set near other material likely to catch fire.

I also don't think that you can group together /transients/ like who you describe and the /tent and tarp settlements/ that are prominent and overwhelming Seattle at this time. These only pronounce and concentrate the sanitary and fire risks, and invariably leave swathes of trash about them.

One of these tent settlements near Pioneer Square was in the middle of the city, not even near the highways, and gained some infamy and even a title name, the 'tent mansion', when it accrued a full keg. It's one thing to say we shouldn't hide problems, another to let a problem run so wild and concentrated that the surrounding area is made useless for other public use in the process.

Re: Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness

#76

Post by i_am_proteus »

trimbo wrote: post #70
i_am_proteus wrote: post #28

These are my personal observations: When I first moved to the SF Bay area, I was surprised by the amount of visible homelessness and by the number of service economy workers who drove nearly two hours to and from work. I also had my first experiences with the "campuses" of major technology companies, where money was made hand-over-fist. I think the recent widening income gap is a natural consequence of the technology…

> But that relatively small number is still enough to dominate the economy of a major metropolitan area... So the rise in visible homelessness is perhaps the expected result I'd imagine the expected result is that prices increase to support higher wages for service workers... which they actually have. Just one example: a take-out salad for lunch now costs $15 in San Francisco. The place I'm thinking of has huge line…

My main thought is that it's the intersection of economic prosperity that rewards individuals in certain sectors extremely well combined with natural and artificial restrictions on the housing supply. If housing is short, the people who make the most-- and can pay the most-- have a strong influence on the market rate. And if they're making a whole lot more than the other folks, the other folks get priced out of the market.

BT

I am very glad to hear that there's down-payment assistance for first responders in San Francisco.

Re: Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness

#77

Post by Fellshard »

Zamicol wrote: post #62
davidw wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a different point of view: https://www.realchangenews.org/2019/03/20/komo-asserts-seatt...

I read that and I don't see an alternative presented, just criticism.

That's the gist of how it is in Seattle. You're not allowed to address or discuss it. You're not allowed to observe there may be a problem. You can only help in the permitted ways - serving or donating to some shelters. Everyone else, be on your way. The city will tend to all, you need not worry yourselves.

Re: Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness

#78

Post by Fellshard »

mlinksva wrote: post #43

Surely life in a tent or on the street is far more dangerous than life in shoddy but formal housing, like the complex the protagonists of this story were living in before it was condemned for being unsafe. Of course such a moral quandary shouldn't be necessary: allow and subsidize the cheapest possible permanent and safe housing everywhere.

Do you have evidence that such houses are actually used when made? I've heard - and this is hearsay at the moment - that when those have been built in Seattle, they were unused.

Re: Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness

#79

Post by cheesymuffin »

georgemcbay wrote: post #12
mnm1 wrote: post #8

What is the problem with people living in tents? Why are they forced to dismantle and kicked out by cops? It makes no sense. How can Americans be so cruel to the most vulnerable, most helpless people in our society that they won't even let them live in tents and insist on disrupting their lives constantly? What kind of sick society does this? Is it just so rich assholes don't have to look at them and be reminded that…

We hate the constant reminder that we're two missed paychecks away from joining them. So get'em outta here!

Seriously, man! I'm broke as hell!

Re: Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness

#80

Post by Fellshard »

benatkin wrote: post #63
throwawaysea wrote: post #48

I echo others' sentiments here, that these problems will not be fixed unless people from all sides stop trying to 'win' on ideological grounds, stop trying to gaslight each other, stop trying to demonize, and simply evaluate the situation for what it really is. This requires making hard decisions, selecting the right incentives/disincentives, accepting that no solution is perfect, and instituting transparent well-aud…

The thrust of your argument seems to be "lots of homeless people don't belong here, and if we figure out who belongs here and who doesn't, and help them accordingly, we can improve the situation dramatically". Not a great opinion to have if you want to work with homeless people. They aren't bad people, and they aren't stupid people either, and will see the condescension from a mile away. So even if your solutions are…

I think you're demonizing, just like GP observed people are doing.

It is unwise to assume that 'homeless people' are a single group that have identical traits. There are many subcategories, each with its own causing problems, attitudes, and required solution if they are to escape homelessness. Lumping them all into one category of 'not bad, not stupid, avoiding condescension' is itself condescending and reductive.

If we're to make any headway addressing the real human cost incurred by this problem, we have to have some nuance in identifying these subcategories and the individual people who occupy them.

Post reply on HN