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

This is Real, That's Not

streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 364 posts

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#321

Post by offtop5 »

jschwartzi wrote: post #236
offtop5 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily the worst time of my life was during a 1 year eviction. I even dated a girl for a brief period who told me the ' you can always have a good attitude' thing. Years later when a met someone else struggling to find safe housing, I told them 'always stay positive, attitude' is bullshit. Allow yourself to be upset. Money buys security. Security means one less thing to worry about. I'm very grateful for the career I…

The “good attitude” line is a form of toxic positivity, actually. Getting evicted sucks and it’s perfectly rational to be upset about it. What matters is how you move on from it, and you did and it sounds like your life is much better now.

If I recall correctly she started her speech with ' I've probably never been though what you have'.

I make sure to never repeat this crap to other people.

In hindsight the eviction did get me out of a very bad home life, still was a solid year of hell

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#322

Post by jelliclesfarm »

ggm wrote: post #105

Under the medically justified urgency of covid, Victoria took a significant number of homeless rough sleeping people (as they are called here in australia) into some kind of housing. Queensland did the same using surplus student purpose built dense housing. I'm not going to pretend this "solved the problems" but I am told a number of the less intractable cases got put into a better situation,simply having secure shel…

The easiest way to solve homelessness is to build a home. The legal minimum is 72 sq.ft per person. Dorms and shared kitchens and bathrooms can also be a solution.

There should be no room for thought processes that pretend that we can solve homelessness by any other means than just give people a home.

Just build high density villages with basic facilities so a place exists for people to take stock before figuring out their lives. Maybe they can be there till they finish education. Maybe till they recuperate from illness or use it as rehab. Or live there till they get a better job. Short lease, minimal rent. A breathing space.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#323

Post by jelliclesfarm »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #119
ggm wrote: post #105

Under the medically justified urgency of covid, Victoria took a significant number of homeless rough sleeping people (as they are called here in australia) into some kind of housing. Queensland did the same using surplus student purpose built dense housing. I'm not going to pretend this "solved the problems" but I am told a number of the less intractable cases got put into a better situation,simply having secure shel…

We have it over and over and over again that housing first is the approach that works. Yet it is very hard for society to stomach the idea of giving someone a handout "no matter what they have done or will do". I don't know why but this seems to be the primary psychic barrier to doing this thing we know works and which can in some cases even be cheaper than services first aid.

Housing first doesn’t mean free housing for life.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#324

Post by jelliclesfarm »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #128
turbinerneiter wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't give free housing to the unfortunate and at the same time increase rent on the workers. Workers need to see homeless people every day so they can feel better off and scared to end up like them. Everything else is bad for real estate investors.

The motivations of moneyed interests are obvious. But the contempt the working and middle classes have for the poor is something I'll never understand. I've often been obliged to pay for something I've seen others acquire freely and I say good for them. I wouldn't exchange places with them for a moment. It seems the pettiest of all things to begrudge someone whose life is a disater, even in the rare cases when it is…

Perhaps those who object have more to lose or have worked harder. Everyone has had different challenges that shape their perspective. We can never assume to understand another person’s motivation or understanding.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#325

Post by vondur »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #119
ggm wrote: post #105

Under the medically justified urgency of covid, Victoria took a significant number of homeless rough sleeping people (as they are called here in australia) into some kind of housing. Queensland did the same using surplus student purpose built dense housing. I'm not going to pretend this "solved the problems" but I am told a number of the less intractable cases got put into a better situation,simply having secure shel…

We have it over and over and over again that housing first is the approach that works. Yet it is very hard for society to stomach the idea of giving someone a handout "no matter what they have done or will do". I don't know why but this seems to be the primary psychic barrier to doing this thing we know works and which can in some cases even be cheaper than services first aid.

Here in California, we have huge budgets to tackle the homeless problems, which are paid for from taxes. Yet the homeless situation has not changed anywhere here that I can see. Where is that tax money going to?

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#326

Post by jelliclesfarm »

Gunax wrote: post #252
syshum wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Housing First, like with any Welfare program, it abuse. Housing First programs are ripe for abuse and are abused. While yes it is cheaper in some ways, the problem is people will be less likely to be creative or lean on personal support networks (i.e couch surfing, live with family, etc) if the government through the taxpayer will just hand you a key to an apartment no questions asked.... There were…

I hate to call it abuse, but I do wonder how one avoids rewarding bad behaviour. There are a lot of poor people who work very hard to provide for their family. I don't know what should we do for them.

Teach them financial literacy. Upskill them. And encourage girls/women to practice safe sex. Large families without stable jobs/income end up living in the fringes of poverty and will eventually fall without a safety net. Time and again, low rates of literacy and teenage pregnancies and poor household income are correlated.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#327

Post by amanaplanacanal »

twblalock wrote: post #311
zeckalpha wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t the OP do those things and still end up homeless?

So? Should the millions of students who rely on loans have their opportunity for an education taken away because of that?

You seem to be assuming that student loans are the only way to pay for that. In the past most of the money was given as grants rather than loans.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#328

Post by jelliclesfarm »

nrp wrote: post #112
pksebben wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if this is true, why on earth wouldn't they just use that money to, I dunno, rent them an apartment?

They do. The majority of San Francisco’s budget around homelessness actually goes into keeping people housed, not to services for people who are unhoused. Mission Local has consistently interesting (though highly opinionated) reporting around this: https://missionlocal.org/2018/10/prop-c-in-liberal-san-franc...

They could build high density apartments far away from San Francisco and run multiple shuttles for those working in the city.

Homeless crisis and affordable home crisis will never be solved without robust transport networks.

Yes, we can house a lot of people who need help. No, we can’t house them in San Francisco. Or in other expensive metros.

As an aside, when prefab house builder from mare island offered to build units for the homeless, the unions protested and SF mayor, London Breed had to acquiesce to build them in the city and use Union labour only.

So it was decided in 2014..maybe 2016..that after they find lots to build in SF, funds would go to build homeless units(not pre fab because Union labour was a condition).

After that, the whole thing is hanging in limbo. Because..as if..there will be land in SF to build homes for the homeless. Daft..laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#329

Post by amanaplanacanal »

gfxgirl wrote: post #14

> Growing up, I kind of thought "Most people are just nice." I had no means to figure out how much was natural charm, how much was me dressing well... > Being homeless taught me that, no, most people absolutely are not just nice. I know this will get downvoted but AFAIK most people see homeless people themselves as "not nice" as in "it's not nice to foist your problems on the rest of us", "it's not nice not to take r…

I don't know where you are, but in the US we have a nationwide shortage of mental health resources. Sometimes the programs to help people just don't exist. I've been fortunate enough never to find myself in that situation, but I realize that is mostly circumstances that I had no control over. I grew up in a stable home, fell into a career that suited me and paid well, and didn't develop any health issues that made it impossible for me to work. Consider yourself lucky it hasn't happened to you either.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#330

Post by OJFord »

henrikschroder wrote: post #319
OJFord wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's described isn't a dress code, it's 'not being a chav', essentially. It's necessary, but not sufficient, for something very far from 'upper class'.

What she described was actually very vague, so I don't know what you are envisioning? A thing to remember though is that the further away from a social class you are, the less you know about its culture. I suspect that the styling cues she's talking about would be instantly noticeable to other people from the same class, whereas lowly plebs like you and me would never notice, or care.

> What she described was actually very vague, so I don't know what you are envisioning?

Exactly what I quoted above:

> (Not too much skin showing, no cleavage on display, don't let your bra straps show, etc.)

Post reply on HN