Groups of Homeless People | Hacker News Reader

Groups of Homeless People

acesounderglass.com

107 pointsexolymph62 comments

As a many-decades resident of Santa Cruz and San Francisco, and a as someone who has in the past been deeply involved in the street/drug scene and been associated with and friends with many dozens of people who have lived on the streets, I think this bizarre attempt at categorization missed the most visible and important group of people on the streets...

People who choose to live on the streets. Go talk to people. Ask where they're from. The people you're most likely to encounter (the ones being visible, doing drugs visibly, camping visibly) are travelers of sorts. Adventurers even. Sure, many are drug addicts or have mental health issues. But so do millions of people with jobs and homes. Unlike those people, these people choose to eschew social norms wholesale and live a nomadic lifestyle.

You see much less of this outside of the temperate climate of the West Coast. But here, it's a growing problem. They have plenty of food and can earn above minimum wage by spare-changing and are given adequate healthcare. And they shit and piss on our streets, block sidewalks, litter profusely and otherwise do whatever they feel like.

Sounds like you’re talking about the tweakers in RVs and the street kids/crust punks in the Haight who have pit bulls and are just living a “lifestyle” or homeless by choice. I think most of them qualify as “ruiners” according to the article, but maybe you disagree. These are the group of homeless I think that are causing 90% of the issues in the city and they know cops won’t really do much so they are constantly pushing what they can get away with like petty theft, stealing bikes, operating open bike chop shops, openly selling and using drugs, camping wherever they feel like... This is the group who are basically ruining quality of life for everyone else and a drain to homeless resources.

I think there needs to be some kind of program and either homeless are enrolled and attending and getting help, or they aren’t allowed to stay within city limits. It’s just really frustrating how the city has done nothing to sort the homeless into people who want help and the people who don’t. I think between the lazy DAs, cops who don’t care, juries who won’t convict, and judges who won’t sentence—we’ve created a situation where no one is actually improving the homeless crisis, just ignoring it. BART has become a de facto homeless shelter. Antioch trains regularly have 5-7 homeless people sleeping in each car during rush hour. I read in SFGate that they arrested 66 fugitives in the Tenderloin in one sweep this week... it just doesn't seem safe to have this level of lawlessness in a major city.

I feel bad for these people because most of them are mentally ill or struggling with some other issue, but this is not the way to run a world class city. There is clearly money to fix the problem, but no political will to actually put the structures in place.

Well then, sounds like a problem that can easily be solved with the meager expense of public facilities, trashcans, and open spaces that aren't sidewalks for the unhoused to hang out in.

I think you’re missing the point. The people that OP is referring to refuse to use all the public facilities offered, they don’t want to sleep indoors, they don’t want to use trash cans, they don’t want to piss in mobile bathrooms or take showers, they don’t want to be corralled into designated hang out spots.

They want to go wherever they want to, camp out wherever they want to, they want to collect whatever garbage they want to and they don’t want to clean up after themselves, they want to do as much drugs and alcohol abuse in public as they want to, they want to piss wherever they may happen to be at the moment because they don’t want to be burdened with the responsibility of thinking out their actions.

This doesn’t describe every one exactly but it generally describes most that fall into this category.

Ultimately these are people who refuse to play by the rules of society. No amount of public support is going to change them because they simply do not want to change. They are perfectly happy where they are right now, doing whatever it is they want to do. Nobody can solve their ‘problem’ because as far as they are concerned there is no problem.

So understanding that fact, society needs to decide just how much of that behavior it is willing to tolerate.

people who are extreme along these lines can fall into the ruiners category (eg taking drugs in a childrens play area and pissing on the slide).

people who are not so extreme perhaps fall into the first category. I mean, I know people who live free because they want to. They don't cause any issues to the public around them except that they don't pay local taxes and are therefore a burden on the state in some minimal way (simplistically, they do use the roads and other services provided by the government). If housing were cheap enough they might take advantage of that.

So, libertarians, but without the money?

(How do these people get into this state? Is this just a concentration phenomenon, where people who think that all move to the same place?)

Many were bussed in by other cities to California

As a “recovering libertarian”, this is accusation is so apt. The ideology fits the behavior being described very closely.

Which is why it is so perplexing that Bay Area progressives strive so hard to protext libertarians.

Interesting. How do those people think of jail time? Will arresting scare them away or change their behavior?

Probably not. They just go to wherever they are least bothered. Hence the Bay Area and its laxness.

Oh no your treating mental illness with jail time, thats bad.

Completely agree. Walking around San Fran the lack of public restrooms and reticence of shopowners to let you use their private restroom made me want to poop on the street.

Santa Monica had a bunch of public restrooms and you NEVER see poop on the street like on San Fran.

Yep. Some people just get sick of banging their heads against the wall, trying to make it in normal society. Life on the streets can be tough, but like anything, there are people with the skills to survive and prosper. If you're someone who gets little pleasure from responsibilities and owning things, and especially if you like to escape with drugs, being homeless in a temperate climate can look enticing.

I think it's hard to talk about it, because people hear it and think you're saying all homeless people choose to live that way. It's not like that, but some people definitely do choose that life.

Do these people not fall under "the ruiners"?

No, the "ruiners" are the ones who impose large costs on the system. Some people are just trying to live peacefully on the streets. In large enough numbers, yeah you'll get people treating public spaces poorly and it'll cause public health problems.

The key difference is that people like this who are living on the streets intentionally, if they get kicked out of the area they're living in or if the friend group gets broken up, they'll just go back to living in regular housing. Things like housing centers aren't useful to this group, but if you have cops go through arresting people they will go away.

(For what it's worth, my source knowledge here is totally personal and anecdotal. When I was a new grad student at Berkeley I was surprised when a roommate of a friend told me he had recently spent a few days on the streets. He explained to me that he did this often, panhandling to make some extra money, thought it was generally fun, and met a number of people doing it for similar reasons.)

Personally I'd call anyone who is homeless "for fun" a ruiner. In addition to overstressing the systems in place to support "legitimately homeless" people, they provide a convenient strawman for those who wish to argue that homeless people aren't deserving of help. The same goes for our welfare system.

> For what it's worth, my source knowledge here is totally personal and anecdotal.

Mine too. Same goes for the author of the article, I suspect. Everyone should take it with a grain of salt.

I think it depends on how they go about their lifestyle. Shouldn't we be free to choose whether we want to settle down in one location or wander around, as long as we're not hurting anybody? It seems unlawfully (un-American at least) restrictive to dictate how a person must live when it comes to their choice of residence

That's what it sounds like from the last paragraph.

> And they shit and piss on our streets, block sidewalks, litter profusely and otherwise do whatever they feel like.

Why is the amount of these growing?

I can't speak for every location but if you're traveling through the SF bay area, it's certainly a lot more expensive to get a hotel or other lodging than it used to be. Basically the relevant alternative might not be permanent housing, it might just be a cheap hotel room.

Because home and hotel rates keep rising relative to minimum wage.

I am unclear what sort of research went into these categories. They seem effectively anecdotal and subjective - there's no statistics or studies being quoted that I can see.

Sure, something like "informal sociology" is something that I think everyone does and I don't think that's a bad thing by itself. Such "studies" become more problematic if they are presented in the form of science, especially in situations like homelessness where average people's vague impressions of the homeless can go into homeless policy - ie, where shelters should be, etc.

I mean, my also anecdotal impression is that a lot of people move between some or all of the categories that are listed. That movement involves getting or not-getting sleeps or medication, random walks between doing well and not doing well, the rise and fall of relationships, etc.

But altogether, if any actual policy is being made, the best thing is making a study what percentage of people will benefit.

I experienced homelessness for a while in my 20's (back in the 90's, for reference). And yes, there were a group of people who were homeless and did not want to change. They would complain to everyone who could give them cash or assistance about how horrible their life was, and how they were victims of circumstance, but to other homeless people they were quite honest about their intentions to stay on the streets.

I never experienced people abusing me or stealing my stuff, but they were definitely difficult to be around. "ruiners" is a great name for them.

I moved on, getting some casual construction labouring work that allowed me to get the deposit for a rental property together (90's remember, not sure that would be possible today). And a friend let me housesit her place for a couple of weeks, which really helped.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help the homeless... I got a helping hand up from a construction contractor who didn't have to help me, and I'm grateful for it. But maybe don't be surprised if earnest attempts to help the situation aren't received well.

Do you have any ideas as to why they prefer to stay on the streets ?

It's similar to someone complaining about their job or relationship, but refusing to do anything about it.

Life can be comfortable if you keep thinking to yourself that you are a helpless victim. You become your own biggest hurdle at that point but it's a consistent predictable life people sometimes subconsciously fall into.

It's also still subjective to say not being homeless is all good. Some may even prefer that "free" lifestyle of not having to have responsibilities.

I had a mate around the same time who was voluntarily homeless. A Falklands veteran who'd worked on bomb disposal. They didn't know what PTSD was back then, but after he'd seen too many of his friends blown up in buildings, he didn't trust them much, and preferred living outdoors.

But that's a different thing, I think.

Totally agree, for some people painting themselves as innocent victims of circumstance allowed them to avoid all responsibility for their lives, and let them continue avoiding facing unpleasant/difficult truths about themselves. Not all, obviously, but there were those who didn't want to change because change would be painful.

I've known a bunch of people in Number 1-4, more number fours than anything else. A whole bunch of the number fours are not seriously mentally ill - or even mentally ill at all - they're just really shitty at making choices for themselves.

I’m surprised people can even act like they care. We had one generation awhile back made it so affordable housing existed for the young and where banks were alright with mortgages being done. That very same generation that could obtain a home in their 20s without requiring a degree. Now runs the show where the young are being pressured into obtaining a degree and fill small rentals that continue to rise in cost. People should be able to have a place they truly consider their own. Mental health depends on it. People just don’t care.

I was a #2. Ask me anything!

How did you end up in that situation and how did you get out of it? Were there friends or family that could help out and if so, why didn't they?

This was in 2009. At the end of 2008 when startup financing dried up, I ended up with pretty much no income. I was recruiting on an hourly basis, and I couldn't find a new contract. I had about $50K saved up to pay taxes and an S.F. studio apartment, and I decided to live off that money & try starting a startup. A year later I had no money and no apartment.

I could have stayed with my parents in the burbs of L.A., but I figured I would have gotten stuck in an area where there even less opportunity. I ended up floor surfing at a cheap place here in San Francisco, the Harcourt Hotel at 1105 Larkin St. Basically I made newer friends faster that my new the friends didn't want me crashing with them anymore.

so assuming you had no savings, no open line of credit and no family to lean on... how did you get out from that?

Also did you have any dependencies?

What were your leanings from the experience?

After a couple months of being homeless, an old client of mine called up and asked if I could help with some work. I said yes, but also said that I wasn't in a position to do work now and wait for an invoice to get paid. They have me a $5000 advance. $1000 went to bring the balance of my overdrawn checking account up to zero. $2500 went to paying rent for a couple months at a relatively cheap hotel. About $1000 went to expenses related to filling the job, and I scraped together a couple months of food on yhe last $500.

It all worked out. My business took off from there with a lot of luck, hard work, producing results, and getting referrals. I sold that business a couple years later, and used that money to learn how to play developer for moniez :)

I'm not sure what you mean by dependencies, but I had no dependents/kids to care for & I was not dependent on drugs. I did drink a little more than I should at the time, but it wasn't ever too bad.

The number one lesson I learned is to not run out of cash. Life is 100x easier when you have a little money. If you don't believe me, try to see how much you can buy with $20 vs getting someone to give you $20 :)

Even using the term "homeless" itself illustrates how the author lumps everyone who does not have a permanent building that they are registered and in full "possession" of into one big category.

One could just as easily come up with five stories about "housed" people. Reading this article makes me think that the author has based their knowledge on researching Wikipedia and papers...

changing the zoning laws is really hard when you have people in the hotel industry spending huge amounts to not only keep it the way it is, but make it even more restrictive. Cities are fining airbnb, using code enforcement to put huge leins on property owners who try to accommodate low income housing in neighborhoods... 20 yeas ago most places didnt even have a "code enforcement".. its a racket. all it does is raise rent higher

The bit on 'ruiners' is overly judgemental, lumping people who are clearly upset and mentally ill in with predators. Yes, there are sociopaths and predators in homeless shelters, but a lot of the behaviors being picked out in group 5 are just signs of mental illness and distress - just a severe point on the continuum of group 4.

Also, a category that's neglected is people who could be served by existing shelter or halfway house infrastructure but choose to avoid it: I know of people who are 'homeless by choice' as a result of facilities being either (a) too scary/chaotic or (b) too moralizing (e.g. 'dry').

There's also a good deal of youth homelessness which falls into many of these categories without cleanly matching any one of them. Sometimes kids leave households because they are 'wild', but frequently because the households are dysfunctional and couch-surfing or sleeping on the streets is perceived to be no more dangerous than being at home (or being shunted into foster care).

I agree with the 'ruiners' label though, especially living in SF, the vast majority of homeless are minding their own business and trying to get by. If you pass by 100 in your day and just one happens to be openly shitting in front of you, you might walk away saying, 'the homeless are really ruining the city', in spite of 99% of your encounters being neutral.

I'm not convinced that characterizing people who are mentally ill as "ruiners" is a particularly helpful taxonomy whether you're looking to understand homelessness or help fix it. I think it just serves as a tough-talking catchall category for "homeless I don't like" here (like we'll cut the 'bad ones' out of the herd and then be nice to everyone else).

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of labelling people as 'ruiners' - even when they have have behaviours that are in fact ruining cities, shelters, etc. This is particularly pernicious because the author doesn't bother to separate out predatory behavior ("robbing other homeless people") from mental illness ("painting the walls with poo").

It's like the author just ran out of compassion somewhere down the list and said "fuck the rest of these guys".

>I'm not convinced that characterizing people who are mentally ill as "ruiners"

They're not. They fall into:

>4. People who can’t survive the modern world without assistance

I am aware that he says that people can be in multiple categories. However, many of the things he describes in the ruiner category are way more typical of mental illness, which to me is deeply problematic. The focus appears to be on how bad the people in category 5 are. It's attaching a shitty, judgemental label to very sick people at the very bottom rung of society.

Yes, there are scammers, predators and just plain assholes in the homeless world (and these people should be in a much smaller and better thought out 'ruiner' category). However, the difference between someone who "needs a bit of help to get through the day" and "someone who is painting the walls of their room in poo" is largely a matter of degree (i.e. one requires massive quantities more help to stabilze).

Oh sure! Project your fears onto other people, and put them into psuedo-categories. Much easier to do this than to humanize them. Bravo for your technical analysis!

Oh boy! This sarcasm is what living in Britain for 10 years has helped me master. I think deep down my sarcasm actually represents pain.

“We Americans stubbornly resist the possibility that what we do is profoundly shaped by policies, norms, systems, and other structural realities. We prefer to believe that people who commit crimes are morally deficient, that the have-nots in our midst are lazy (or at least insufficiently resourceful), that overweight people simply lack the willpower to stop eating, and so on. If only those folks would just exercise a little personal responsibility, a bit more self-control!” — Alfie Kahn

Seriously, what needs of yours are met by psuedo-diagnosing some of American society's most vulnerable? And more importantly, what needs of yours are unmet? What emotions do you feel, and what do you feel in your body?

I think American society has evolved into a culture that glorifies violence, turns young girls into sex objects, sends young men to their deaths to ‘defend America’, and indoctrinates it's citizens with bizarre nationalistic views and a sense superiority that to me is completely removed from a compassionate view of life.

For some reason, instead of having an empathic view on those people, your ego has decided that it is actually better than these people. This to me looks like a case of good old grandiosity! This seems oh so common in the great U. S. of A.. Exceptionalism seems to be embedded into the culture overall.

I invite all of us to take a gentle look in the mirror, and I believe the following video reflects our collective unconscious and our society’s ‘shadow’. It has helped me reflect, maybe it will for you too.

“No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.” -C.G. Jung

(In-Shadow by Lubomir Arsov)[https://vimeo.com/242569435]

Update - comment on prison:

"I don’t have a solution to ruiners that isn’t prison"

Have you watched the recent documentary 'The Work'? I think putting people in jail is possibly the worst crime of all. Let's get them in therapy instead. We can help to heal them by listening to their stories. The trailer for 'The Work' can be watched here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8OVXG2GhpQ

You lost me at the "society's most vulnerable" rhetoric. Tired and misleading. Bye.

This whole comment reads like AI generated a 'woke college freshman' parody

Are you homeless? I am and have been for about 10 months, SF. I don’t think this is a constructive list; I am working on my own, of course. For example, there is a new group in Mountain View who call themselves transitional RV housing. Nice try but not holding any water in my view.

Tangent, I am qualified for a lot of dev jobs.

I was pretty with it until 4 and 5. The premise that certain groups of people without housing "can't survive without the kind of assistance that money can't buy" is condescending and elitist at best.

No, there are a huge number of people that are on the edge w.r.t. mental health. Not quite capable of handling activities of daily living and/or their own finances. Or not 100% of the time, and that fraction of the time that they can't, their money evaporates, and/or relationships evaporate.

The crisis in mental health care in the US is shameful. It is true that in the bad-old-days people were over institutionalized. So the pendulum has swung, and now unless a person is very clearly dangerous to themselves or others, it is nearly impossible to get a person resistant to treatment the help that they really need.

We talk about people "falling through the cracks", but the "crack" is a mile wide. It is pretty hard to convince me that a cardboard box under a freeway overpass is better housing than the mental institutions of old. That said, I don't think many of the mentally ill need to be forced into an institution under the old model, but we really do need a mechanism to deal with ill people resistant to treatment.

[edit: spelling]

Yeah man it’s serious. Someone asked me to help an individual recently and I’m struggling to figure out how to help. He is a programmer who suffers from schizophrenia. His hallucinations got out of control until he lost his job, his life, and his kids. Social workers pretty much forced the one person in his life who cares for him (his wife) to have him removed by the police. Now he hates her. Then he proceeded to miss his hearing so he was arrested. Now he is thrown in jail. I feel guilty but I don’t know how to handle this.

I feel for you. Lacking appropriate training, it is hard for us to actually help, even though we care. The first thing to remember is that whatever you say or do will be processed through the lens of his reality. He will try to fit it into the framework of his world. The eventual fit may be very skewed. It is difficult to know how to be helpful in that situation. Sorry I don’t have more for you.

That's terrible, and I don't think there are any easy answers. Just be there if he reaches out, and help in small ways when you can.

> That said, I don't think many of the mentally ill need to be forced into an institution under the old model, but we really do need a mechanism to deal with ill people resistant to treatment.

This is the mission statement right here. Very well said.

There are quite a few articles/blogs/etc out there from psychiatric professionals who were practicing before deinstitutionalization, many of whom were champions of the reforms, but who in retrospect question whether it should have happened (or at least how it was executed and how ‘community mental health’ never really took off).

Maybe it’s time to revisit the concept of mental institutions, albeit a more humane model.

> Maybe it’s time to revisit the concept of mental institutions, albeit a more humane model.

There isn't a more humane model. If you're forcing people into an institution you're also going to be forcign them to take medication and if you're not very careful there's a bunch of other restrictive practice and other bad stuff that happens. The main ones would be use of rapid tranquilisation, use of prone restraint and supine restraint, and sexual assualt from staff and other patients.

A better model would be correctly funded assertive outreach teams.

All true, but I guess I mean a ‘better’ model not at the expense of the perfect model.

Can you tell me more about assertive outreach teams?

There’s a guy on my psych floor right now that, at his best, is too psychotic and paranoid to hold a job for more than a few days. At his worst - where he usually is, because his paranoia includes medications, and he believes he’s completely healthy - he’s only loosely tethered to reality. It’s a good day if he’s clothed even vaguely appropriate to the season, and manages to eat actual food. It’s not uncommon for him to eat soap because an archangel tells him this will increase his potency with women. This isn’t funny, nor exaggeration: this is how an actual real person is living and suffering.

He’s not exceptional. Psychotic disorders do that.

That you think that /describing their existence/ is “condescending and elitist” speaks mostly to the ridiculously privileged bubble you live in.

This is absolutely blowing my mind right now because 20 years ago during a significant psychotic episode I also ate soap on the advice of a glowing angelic figure who also commanded me to store samples of my own semen in a freezer in my basement. I've long since accepted those experiences as crazy edge cases in a complex brain and tied every supernatural interpretation I had to actual rational events, and I'm sure this is just an insane coincidence, but damn if it doesn't make me pause for a second. I wonder if there's some strange cultural artifact I've forgotten that both I and this fellow were exposed to that would explain this synchronicity.

Yeah thank you for your comment -- there are tons of people out there who need that kind of help, I have known some of them as well (maybe not as closely as in your profession!) and the us mental health system is not adequate

My point wasn't articulated well in my first comment. I am worried more about painting homeless people with such a broad stroke. Getting a roof over someone's head is entirely different from getting them mental health services -- we need to fix both to actually solve the problem. And the specific language around "ruiners" in the post really struck a nerve with me... I think that everyone is deserving of some degree of help and shouldn't be thrown in prison like OP suggested.

That said, I don't appreciate the personal attack. While I did find reading about your experience helpful and appreciate you sharing, I think your comment at the end is part of what makes the internet bad. Look to some of the other comments critical of my post for some better examples.

Have you met someone with severe mental retardation? My neighbor required round the clock support, often by multiple people. You could've given that girl 5 million dollars, and she would have no idea how to use it to get support. There is nothing condescending about his statement.

Many years ago, I visited a group home for people with various psychiatric issues. My girlfriend was the "den mother", and I'd spend nights with her occasionally. So I got to know some of the residents.

Anyway, these people would have been on the street, if the state hadn't provided a place for them. I particularly remember a schizophrenic guy. In the right circumstances, on safe topics, he seemed pretty sharp. But then, he was well medicated.

*her statement

I've had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I spent nearly six years homeless.

It seems accurate to me, at least for America today. It's quite a tall order to ask society as a whole to change, though that would make life more manageable for some people currently unable to make their lives work.

It's a common misconception that humans without homes would be / are totally fine. Normal people who live in houses every day have no idea what living on the street does to someone psychologically. It's the jungle compared to our cushy lifestyles.

Sure, you can "survive", technically speaking. But living for days, weeks, years as an animal, fighting sometimes to the death for scraps, and god knows what else, it's definitely the comforts of friendship and human civility (that "money can't buy") that you're in the most need of.

The description is spot on and not condescending.

There are many veterans out there who will tell anyone that they just don’t know what to do once they leave the forces. They need to have their entire weekly schedule planned out and someone to help them with that planning. Many ex-cons have the same problem, and you’ll find a similar issue with 18 year olds who are fresh out of school and pushed out their parents’s home.

This phenomenon, institutionalization, is a very real issue. For guys who have their whole life planned out daily for them and superiors to assist them with finding housing and dealing with medical care, having a load of freedom tossed at them when they’re over 40 is overwhelming. They’re not dumb. It’s just that humans have trouble adapting as we get older.

A considerable number of veteran support networks and veteran-oriented jobs exist to help people adapt to retiring during middle age.

By pretending that everyone has equal faculties like this, you're denying the lifelong daily challenges of a huge group of people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com