Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by jamesaguilar » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:09 PM UTC

pharaohgeek wrote: post #22

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…

In some ways, it's even worse than that. Here's a guy who has been consuming from society at a high rate his whole life (necessarily, or else he would have money saved). When his lack of planning and laying-away comes back to bite him, it's Palo Alto's fault. I feel a lot more sympathy for people with mental issues or who have never been privileged enough to work a high-paying job.

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

#32

Post by ssharp » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:10 PM UTC

Serious question: Are there trailer parks in the area? A place where you can rent land for parking a mobile-home long term?

I am not at all familiar with the SF/Valley rental market, other than hearing how it's exorbitantly expensive and rents keep growing. I'd have to think there would be somewhere where rents are not so expensive. I have a hard time believing a standard suburban studio or one-bedroom apartment would cost $2800.

As for the article, it sounds like the man profiled here isn't really making rationale decisions, so it's difficult to tell how bad the situation, outside of this anecdote, actually is.

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

#33

Post by x0x0 » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:10 PM UTC

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?

both

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

#34

Post by jamesaguilar » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:10 PM UTC

debt wrote: post #16

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.

This guy is popular. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ Basically, spend as little money as possible until your dead. It's surprisingly good advice.

Stated a little more neutrally: give at least some care what you spend money on in the context of what you're making and what resources you want to have left when you stop working.

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

#35

Post by malanj » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:11 PM UTC

argc wrote: post #28

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.

If they are stupid but shouldn't be enforced, the place to fix is to have the law removed IMHO. Police judgement shouldn't be the solution to bad laws. It's a band-aid that can cause serious long term damage I think.

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

#36

Post by jisaacstone » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:12 PM UTC

"The neighbors in the community, I think, wanted to be reasonable, but they didn't feel safe having their kids go to the center"

Making laws to make the neighbors feel safer! Fantastic! "Don't be poor around me, I don't feel safe."

This is one of the worst forms of NIMBYism. And treating the disadvantaged as dangerous is a form of prejudice. How unfortunate that people only seem to care about racial prejudice.

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

#37

Post by Xdes » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:12 PM UTC

pharaohgeek wrote: post #22

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…

>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.

I sympathize with him. I do not intend to save since there is no point when the future of the country is so uncertain.

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

#38

Post by GuiA » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:13 PM UTC

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…

> It's not enough to live in Palo Alto. MOVE.

"He was laid off [...] The next year, his wife died at age 55. [...] He turned down an offer from his brother to move to Illinois. He wants to stay in Palo Alto, he says, because it has been his home for so long and because he feels safe here. [...] He said he stayed in Palo Alto in large part because of the memories of his late wife."

I agree with you. But... humans don't act rationally. I can imagine how heartbreaking it would be to have to move away from where I spent an entire life with my wife while coping with the loss, even if it would absolutely be the right thing to do financially.

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

#39

Post by mbillie1 » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:13 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #23

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 u…

> It's only an invitation for police harassment if you're breaking the law.

Edit: it is often more of an invitation, however, if you are a minority or poor.

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

#40

Post by devilshaircut » Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 6:14 PM UTC

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…

> "All that being said, I'm not sure what the point of making criminals out of homeless people is. No reason to kick people when they are down."

I agree with this point that you said. The rest I think is pretty unfair; we know very little about this guys' life and how he spent his money (or the reasons he spent his money the way he did - "no excuse" I think is a false statement). The fact is, there are people who aren't making anywhere near $150,000 annual and these people will inevitably run into the same problems this man is facing (outside of Palo Alto - wherever you prefer). Ultimately, he did move out of his $2,150/mo rental, anyhow.