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

Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#21

Post by timmaah »

clarky07 wrote: post #10

I hate to be that guy, and I'm going to sound like an ass, but this is 100% his doing. Software worker in Palo Alto for 30 years making as much as 150k has no excuse. Save some money stupid. Also, when you get fired and can't find another job, perhaps you should move out of your $2150 a month rental. That's enough for 4-5 months or more in other places. $1700 a month SS isn't much, but it's enough to not be homeless…

Agreed on both points. Kicking him out seems kind of harsh since it has been his home for decades, but is there a real solution? He can't afford to live there anymore.

There are tons of LTVA (Long term visitor areas) in southern CA and AZ that he can spend months in his RV for under $200.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#22

Post by pharaohgeek »

At the risk of sounding (or even outright being) cruel, Mr. Smith's real problem is that of terrible financial management skills. Keep in mind that when he moved out there in the 70's, the Valley was not nearly as expensive as it is today. And, with a software engineer's salary during its heyday, he could have very easily purchased -- and paid off -- a place for him to live. As he, himself, said, he made a choice to stay in the area even after he lost his job. He could have made a choice to move somewhere cheaper.

At the age of 70, after a long -- and I'm assuming successful, based on his highest salary -- career, having only a "meager" savings is no one's fault but his own.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#23

Post by jdmichal »

malanj wrote: post #13

Officials say these bans aim to prevent nuisances that can be created by those living in cars, and most are enforced only on a complaint basis. Nothing scares me more than comments like that from government officials. A law that is selectively enforced is effectively an invitation for police harrasment. Either the law makes sense, or it doesn't. If individual civil servants get to decide when to apply a law, you've g…

It's only an invitation for police harassment if you're breaking the law. And in your version, you would instead have been arrested / fined immediately regardless of anyone reporting you.

The bottom line for selective enforcement is that the police recognize that there is a priority structure in laws. They have limited resources and cannot enforce every law, everywhere, every time. While I would rather see this law unmade, the second best thing that can happen is exactly what is, which is the police only getting involved if an actual legitimate issue is raised.

EDIT: A second pertinent example is noise ordinance, which this is similar to as a "public nuisance" law. The law is not worded that it's OK as long as all your neighbors are OK with it. In your world, police would be walking around neighborhoods with a decibel meter and fining every non-compliant house, regardless of whether you cleared everything with your neighbors, or even if your neighbors are the ones making all the noise at your party!

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#24

Post by pgeorgi »

fvrghl wrote: post #7
ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

Well if Palo Alto is willing to spend $250,000 they could pave a bit of parking lot and put in a bathroom/shower unit like exists in campgrounds. But that seems a bit extreme. The guy profiled was tech worker for 30 years, but allegedly "not good with money." If you're in your 20's don't be that guy. Live within your means, save for those future days.

As a 20-something, does anyone have any advice me for or know of resources where I can learn about financial management?

To start simple, make sure you don't spend more than you earn (excluding exceptional circumstances). A simple table, GNU cash or even pen + paper are enough for that: record every transaction you make, no matter what tools you use, as long as it's reasonably low-friction.

I used a simple table with columns date, account, value, purpose. "account" helps getting a sum total for each bank account and for cash, to check how my table compares with reality (ie. bank statements and the content of my wallet).

Simply by tracking money flow you already learn a lot about your habits, while collecting data that helps you optimize it if necessary. I also found that making spending a conscious matter like that already reduced impulse buys.

After that, the other ideas are good ones - and you'll know if they're achievable for you and how.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#25

Post by mcknz »

clarky07 wrote: post #10

I hate to be that guy, and I'm going to sound like an ass, but this is 100% his doing. Software worker in Palo Alto for 30 years making as much as 150k has no excuse. Save some money stupid. Also, when you get fired and can't find another job, perhaps you should move out of your $2150 a month rental. That's enough for 4-5 months or more in other places. $1700 a month SS isn't much, but it's enough to not be homeless…

Perhaps you're right in his particular instance.

But the issue is the same even for those who end up homeless through no fault of their own.

Moving for the homeless has many hidden costs, including the time and effort required to rebuild the local network of support one has built over many years.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#26

Post by praptak »

m_d wrote: post #20
ilyanep wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck building anything in Palo Alto.

I'm not familiar with the real estate situation there beyond "people are being priced out of Palo Alto". Is the city averse to all new construction or just lower-cost housing?

Google "Palo Alto NIMBY".

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#27

Post by jamesaguilar »

malanj wrote: post #13

Officials say these bans aim to prevent nuisances that can be created by those living in cars, and most are enforced only on a complaint basis. Nothing scares me more than comments like that from government officials. A law that is selectively enforced is effectively an invitation for police harrasment. Either the law makes sense, or it doesn't. If individual civil servants get to decide when to apply a law, you've g…

There are a lot of restrictions on what you can do that only make sense to enforce when you are actually harming someone else. This is just one example of that principle.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#28

Post by argc »

malanj wrote: post #13

Officials say these bans aim to prevent nuisances that can be created by those living in cars, and most are enforced only on a complaint basis. Nothing scares me more than comments like that from government officials. A law that is selectively enforced is effectively an invitation for police harrasment. Either the law makes sense, or it doesn't. If individual civil servants get to decide when to apply a law, you've g…

While I agree with you, I think it is also a matter of what the police force spends its resources on. There are so many stupid laws that could be enforced, but probably shouldn't. I'd rather the officers ignore the homeless for the most part and spend their efforts responding to 'real crime'. But yes... this definitely could be abused by any one corrupt officer.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#29

Post by afiler »

malanj wrote: post #13

Officials say these bans aim to prevent nuisances that can be created by those living in cars, and most are enforced only on a complaint basis. Nothing scares me more than comments like that from government officials. A law that is selectively enforced is effectively an invitation for police harrasment. Either the law makes sense, or it doesn't. If individual civil servants get to decide when to apply a law, you've g…

Selective enforcement can be a big problem in lots of areas, especially anywhere where race or class come into play.

The flipside is that if people gradually move into parking overnight in industrial areas, and nobody there cares, then homeowners are happy and people saying in their vehicles still have a (perhaps less convenient) place to go. Yet trying to get a rule passed explicitly allowing that in areas zoned industrial would be a lot harder than a rule that sort of evolves on its own.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#30

Post by rosser »

praptak wrote: post #26
m_d wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with the real estate situation there beyond "people are being priced out of Palo Alto". Is the city averse to all new construction or just lower-cost housing?

Google "Palo Alto NIMBY".

AIUI, the NIMBY-ism in Palo Alto is second only to that in San Francisco.
Post reply on HN