Toronto carpenter builds 'tiny shelters' for the homeless. The city isn't happy
americamagazine.org
americamagazine.org
In London my experience was that a large number (majority?) sleeping on the streets were there because of benefit sanctions, i.e. they simply could not afford to live in a house as the government had removed their social welfare. Some people were waiting to be housed etc.
It only takes a moment's thought to notice (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, (b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.
I helped homeless people who had a job but could not afford a house anymore for different reasons. Most were helped with housing after some time. But if that time is long the temptation to take more alcohol than you should is right around the corner.
With the forecast being that the housing crisis will last until 2030 I'm not sure how much longer it will be effective.
when applying for social housing in Apeldoorn, there's on average 123 applicants for each home
[1] https://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2377995-sociale-huurwoning-in-zek...
Coming from Berlin (which has sizable population of homeless) it was shocking to see many people sleeping on the street in Belfast. There's a lot of homeless in Berlin but I guess they can go to shelter at night. Not so in Belfast.
It seems you're talking past the parent comment.
The fact that some people are down on their luck does not cause crime and insecurity per se. However, mental illness and drug abuse does have a considerable link with safety problems.
Let's put it this way: if you grant housing to someone who suffers from drug addiction or mental illness, those person's problems and the negative impact they have on society won't go magically away.
In fact, think about it for a minute: why are homeless shelters and drug clinics notorious hotspots of insecurity?
No, they really don't.
Someone's schizophrenia doesn't magically vanish if you get your own two-bedroom apartment, nor does your heroin addiction magically vanish if you get a fancy studio apartment with the nicest view. It's outright insulting to every single person who ever struggled with mental illness or drug addiction to even suggest that real estate is a magical cure to problems.
From where I'm standing, this looks an awful lot like correlation being passed off as causality. You see happy families in the suburbs, with their nice house and nice life, and then you see people struggling with mental health and drug addiction, and all you see is that one's have a house while others don't. Well, guess what needs to be in place in your life before you can even be in a position to buy a house.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what%27s+it+like+to+live+in+a+home...
https://invisiblepeople.tv/what-is-it-like-to-stay-in-a-home...
>Wendi’s Experience
>This is what Wendi from Houston, TX had to say about her shelter experience:
>“The largest homeless shelter in Houston is the Salvation Army, or “Sally House” as it is commonly called. It has been shut down three times in the last two years due to bedbug infestation, abruptly forcing folks who were trying to get their lives together to abandon most of their belongings and head back to the streets. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
>Staying at Sally House means having a 5pm curfew, and being awakened at 4:30am to be ready for 5am church, in order to get a breakfast of cold cereal and sent on your way for the day. These hours are totally unrealistic for getting a job in the real world; thus the system forces you to stay in these conditions.
>On top of all of this, you aren’t allowed to have any of your belongings. They are placed in a closet for ‘safekeeping,’ which is usually anything but safe. But more on that later. Instead of your sleeping bag or bedroll, you are given a thin hospital quality blanket, no pillow – and either a cot (if you are lucky) or a thin foam mat on the floor (like a yoga mat). This is where you will sleep, 6 inches from a stranger, after attending the 6pm church service in order to get a sack lunch for dinner. Showers and laundry are allowed once per week.
>Rarely does a ‘client’ get assigned shower and laundry on the same day, so both pretty much defeat the purpose. You either have to bathe and put dirty clothes back on, or do laundry and put your clean outfit on a dirty body. You can be kicked out if you are caught taking a sponge bath or rinsing out your undergarments in the restroom sink.
>Please don’t think I am just picking on Sally House. These are the rules at every shelter in Houston. Times may vary a bit, but the main points are the same. Star of Hope is commonly referred to as Star of Dope because most of their staff is ‘former’ addicts who are not only still using but actively dealing. Restoration Hope Ministries forces its clients to panhandle all day and then confiscates the money. The list goes on and on. This is why many of us choose not to go to shelters.
>When personal property is put in a closet, unless you are the first one there in the morning you risk things being stolen (if the staff hasn’t done so already). When the stranger bunked next to you (and the staff) are high as a kite on every substance known to man, you risk being assaulted, raped, or killed. Sleep doesn’t come easy when you have to live with these facts.
>I sleep better on a sidewalk with my homeless ‘family’ around me than I ever could in a shelter.”
I’ve seen more people sleeping rough in Berlin than any other city I’ve lived in, but I guess everyone perceives things differently..
Homeless are there because that's where they need to go, not because they like Bahnhof Zoo all that much.
If talking in absolutes, Berlin is most populous city in European Union (talking population within city limits proper - Paris and Madrid are larger if you take urban agglomeration in account.) Sure you will see larger absolute numbers than in any other city.
Curious: what do you think Madrid is doing differently, if you think they have less visible population of homeless?
People could just house others, which is cheaper and more humane than our current actions, and they could go back to pretending mental health issues and drug addiction do not exist.
AIUI this is because every citizen has the right to housing - and because the state is compassionate/efficient/wealthy enough this is what happens.
So while I don't disagree that that far tail of people probably do need some welfare to get a house, I do want to state that if someone is going to get welfare so that they can live in a house, it should not be a house in London. It should be a house somewhere somewhat cheaper than London.
If someone honest to goodness can't keep a roof over their heads, they deserve help but really shouldn't be trying to make it work in one of the worlds most expensive cities.
[0] https://www.insider.com/most-expensive-cities-to-live-in-202...
This is some of the worlds most desirable real estate here. This isn't even a case of bad government policy, which I would usually arc up about. The article is homeless people taking over public land for private use without doing anything to justify that privilege. That isn't fair, if it is up for grabs I want it and I'd be behind a long queue of other people who want it. The right to use that land is worth a fortune. Being homeless, while sad, is not actually something that should be rewarded with free space in the centre of a metropolis. If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.
And consider that cities are where support services are.
And consider that if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car.
I just don’t think anybody is homeless in Toronto or London or any other city for the same reasons that rich people make them expensive cities.
I’m pretty sure many homeless, if offered a home in the countryside, would happily oblige.
That’s simply untrue. Owning a car is vastly less expensive than renting a dwelling in most cities. I’ve known people that went homeless, and it’s pretty common for them to...live in their car.
You're probably thinking of this Anatole France[0] quote:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
There's always fallow private lands, easements, empty parking lots, abandoned warehouses, etc.
My open question wrt to squatting is the potential to incentivize keeping real estate in active use. If "use it or lose it" is official policy, it might help mitigate hoarding.
A bit like some cities are now penalizing unoccupied condos, where investors buy up condos and then don't even rent them out.
This is a marginal case of private use of public lands. These are shelters, rather than homes. The size (2' by 6') and construction offers little more than physical security while sleeping.
There are reasons why some homeless people prefer parks. For example: parks tend to be closer to social services and other means of support. There are also homeless people who find other places to squat.
> If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.
Unfortunately, there are also people who believe that type of support means forced relocation. There are many reasons to oppose force relocation. In the mildest of terms, it is never intended to solve the root problem of poverty.
* It is totally reasonable that people sit in them and enjoy the sun.
* It is totally unreasonable for a billionaire to wall a section off and build a mansion in it.
Now we can debate where that line is drawn, but a professionally built plywood structure with door locks and smoke detectors is a lot closer to the unacceptable end than the alternative. That is starting to build up a permanent dwelling in a public space.
I don't know how to solve homelessness, and I'll admit to not trying very hard. But if we can just hive off public spaces for people to live on, then there is no way the homeless are getting first pick. I know people who had to leave a major city due to housing costs and move to the country. If the topic of debate is repurposing public land for longer-term dwellings, they should get priority access to it over these homeless people.
Forcing folks to move can easily mean forcing folks to leave behind what family and friends they have, and seems cruel. Some of the folks will have jobs that don't pay enough to live in the city they work in, and I don't think we should punish people by making them have hours of commuting either.
"You are too poor to live here" is also "you are too poor to afford to take this basic job" as well as "you are too poor to stay around anyone you know".
Why should people who have lost a job and are about to be homeless not be required to move to a lower cost area in order to get free housing?
If need be transportation can be provided.
What’s your point?
I've had to turn down jobs because I couldn't afford the startup costs. One was just red shirts, and I couldn't afford one.
A time or two, the reason I was able to move was because I could stay with family.
Transportation isn't enough. People should be able to live near work: Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes. Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter, a basic need. And so on.
How does
> free housing
> transportation
NOT solve any issues with deposits or rents?
> People should be able to live near work
Sure, there are lots of things that should be, but aren't.
Not everybody can live near work, especially not in the nation's most expensive areas. Being able to live near work is not a basic right, nor should it be.
> Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes.
Ideally not, but if that's all you can get then at least it should be an option.
That being said, the best way to level the field is to have the aforementioned subsidized means of leaving for a low cost of living area.
> Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter
Why not?
If you cannot afford to live in a high cost area, why should somebody else pay for your right to live there?
If you cannot pay your way, what right do you have to occupy a space that somebody else needs and can pay for it? Merely being there first should not confer any special privilege.
Having shelter is a basic need. Living near people you know is not.
That is only true if someone has roots: a job and/or family. If you are single and don’t have many possessions, let alone a job or anyone to look after or be looked after, you are incredibly mobile. Prisons on egress will even ay for your bus ticket to go wherever, if you are without any roots to return to (because they never existed or were long burned away), that literally can be anywhere.
Finally, if you need help to survive and live in a place like Great Falls MT, you aren’t going to get anything there unless you family or some other roots to rely on. You’ll probably wind up in Spokane and then Seattle. If you weren’t mobile, you probably did get help or weren’t helpless in the first place.
I guess there is some confusion between poor and homeless. I totally agree that poor people should be given help to keep living in their own communities, but not necessarily to move into a higher priced community. People without any housing at all are a different story all together. There is no reason why they should be housed in higher priced cities if they don’t have jobs to commute to in the first place.
Most people would regard that as pretty inhumane.
[0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/04/7362403...
For goodness sakes, a shack on a lake north of Toronto goes for millions of dollars these days [0].
A few years ago a conservative government in Alberta tried to solve their homeless problem by giving free one-way tickets to Vancouver to the homeless instead of welfare cheques. Dumping your problem on someone else converts a cost into an economic externality but is sure to get you hated.
[0] http://muskokacottagesforsale.net/real-estate-properties/
Sorry, no I wasn't, my fault for not being clearer. I gave an example of London but my experience is beyond that city, that's just where I happened to talk directly with a lot of homeless people about why they were on the streets.
My observations generalise to the rest of my experience, for sure, including in very poor towns with low rents in the UK.
I left Seattle in 2010 and went back a couple years ago to visit and it looked like the homeless population had doubled in the time since. Seattle has an enormous problem that they have no idea how to solve.
It is her observation that mental illness tends to precede everything. It tends to be what leads to addiction, though self-medication. It tends to lead to homelessness through a lack of cooperation with the housing providers, with the welfare providers who would pay for housing, or with the ability to live in a closed space. Even if your rent is paid by the state the landlord will kick you out for destroying property. When the leprechaun tells you to burn things, don't light a fire on your bed.
There are the generationally poor, the people whose luck took a turn for the worse, and refugees from violence but those populations don't usually end up living rough unless they also develop mental illness.
It's not just about what they provide, but also how they provide it. If the bureaucracy to take advantage of these housing benefits is too thick, then the people that need it the most won't be able to get them.
This is one thing where individuals trying to help are likely going to do better. An individual isn't going to have a bureaucratic mess that you need to navigate to get help. The government might have such a mess though.
This is not repeated as often as it should. I live in an Eastern European country, not a poor one but definitely not a rich one, and only recently I have learned about LA's Skid Row. Because I was curious I went on Google StreetView and what I saw there [1] literally shocked me, I didn't honestly think scenes like that were possible in a developed country. We certainly don't have them here in my country, we do have our share of people living rough [2] and the like but not on the same scale as I saw in those photos.
This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it).
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0437952,-118.2431811,3a,48.9...
[2] https://www.scena9.ro/article/segregare-romi-pata-rat-cluj
Also, perhaps emigration to Western Europe has served as a safety valve for homelessness. Some down-and-out Romanians can move to Italy or Spain and immediately improve their prospects. Down-and-out Americans, on the other hand, have nowhere to go so easily.
"L.A.H.S.A.’s 2019 homeless count found that 64 percent of the 58,936 Los Angeles County residents experiencing homelessness had lived in the city for more than 10 years. Less than a fifth (18 percent) said they had lived out of state before becoming homeless."
http://homelessperspective.com/2019/11/08/where-does-califor...
We built this hell.
I think a big issue is that in the US people aren’t willing to acknowledge how blatantly corrupt ALL politicians are. People are really caught up in the tribalism of the two party system.
It's a shame that most places won't even allow these people anywhere to pitch a tent, somewhere with bathrooms and access to a bus stop.
Minimum lot and habitable space rules vary by state and locality, not only is 1,000 sq. ft. usually above the minimum for habitable space, its often above the minimim for lot size by a wide margin.
And does that change the point I was making, that zoning is a bigger impediment to more/cheaper housing than codes? It isn't safety codes that says I can't put six locked insulated sheds in my back yard for six homeless people to sleep in and a port potty, it's zoning, right?
Zoning is codes, and safety is one of the overt purposes of such codes. And, conversely, state building/safety/hability codes can have zoning-like exclusionary purposes as well as their overt purposes. You can’t really cleanly divide them as unrelated orthogonal rules.
> It isn't safety codes that says I can't put six locked insulated sheds in my back yard for six homeless people to sleep in and a port potty, it's zoning, right?
No, in most cases using sheds and not having in-unit bathrooms would violate safety/hability codes at the state level, not just local zoning ordinances.
Now, building an otherwise legal multiunit apartment complex on your single-family-zoned lot would also be a zoning violation, true.
However I did some digging and found that there's a big difference between what the commonly used international residential codes allow, and what zoning commonly allows.
From an article on tiny houses [0]:
> Most of the country’s local building codes have been adopted from the International Residential Code (IRC) for one- and two-family dwellings, which contains size specifications like rooms (except bathrooms and kitchens) must be at least 70 square feet, while ceiling height must be at least 7 feet.
> Zoning regulations are based off more local factors, and determine the size requirements of your home based on what zone it’s located in. You will need to call your local zoning or planning department to find that info. Many cities and counties, however, have a minimum size requirement of 1,000 square feet or more for construction of a new home on its own land, according to Tiny House Community.
And from a separate linked article on minimum dwelling size to satisfy codes [1]:
> I find no requirement that the sleeping area or kitchen must be in separate rooms, and instead could be combined in a studio arrangement. So I believe it could be legitimately argued that a minimum legal area by 2015 IRC standards could be as small as one habitable room of 70 sq. ft. with sleeping area and kitchen, plus a bathroom as small as 18 sq. ft. while meeting minimum spacing requirements.
So it does kind of look like zoning is still the big cost multiplier, since codes say 88 square feet minimum (separate bathroom), while zoning in most cities/counties in the US mandate 1000 square feet minimum. Quite a difference. And that's before getting into minimum lot size.
[0] https://archive.curbed.com/2016/9/22/13002832/tiny-house-zon...
[1] https://americantinyhouseassociation.org/minimum-size-for-a-...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/minimum-hou...
“The IRC codes require that all homes must be built on a minimum of 320 square feet. The minimum square footage for a house is 120 square feet, and at least one room must be habitable. Habitable rooms meet other regulations, such as needing a closet and at least one window. Other rooms, not meant for sleeping, must be at least 70 square feet.”
It also weasel words (and apparently succeeds in tricking you with it) about what zoning requires; what you interpret as “most” is actually described inbthe article you cite with the far weaker “many”:
> Many cities and counties, however, have a minimum size requirement of 1,000 square feet or more for construction of a new home on its own land
Not “most”.
The places where an overwhelming majority of people live (where the jobs are) have zoning regulations that do not allow 120 square foot houses, or anything close to that small. There's a lot of people who want a tiny house and can't find a place to legally put one. It still looks like zoning defines minimums for the most part, not safety codes, and there is a big difference, which was my original point.
Do you really think I'm that far off on this?
We squander hundreds of millions and billions into completely untracked and unaccountable programs where executives skim off the top. We spend money on giving drug addicts more needles (but not to diabetics!) and blankets and $5000 tent camps or other useless or less than useless solutions. It’s pathetic that in the richest state and with so much wealth, we allow this inhumane situation to continue. COVID gave local mayors an excuse to do even less. Now there are city streets covered in filth, rats, feces, lawlessness, drugs, prostitution, etc are all on the street in broad daylight.
We should be embarrassed but most people just shrug it off (or downvote for bringing it up). Whatever we are doing is clearly not working and it’s a policy failure we should look into.
Then we have morons like the DA in San Francisco, Chesa Boudin, who have effectively stopped the police from enforcing the rule of law which is attracting more of the homeless who just want to do meth and steal bikes and break them down for parts. Every freeway overpass is covered in trash and homeless creeps are all over. I’m taking my wife and kid and moving out of California soon, this is just a disgusting way to live for the astronomical cost of living.
1) No one wants homeless shelters, supportive housing, mental institutions, day program facilities, etc. in their neighborhoods.
2) Well meaning but naive people constrain the solution space.
For example, there’s been a movement to reduce arrests for various things. An unintended consequence or that is that homeless people that victimize other homeless people (including theft and assault) are less frequently arrested and so homeless shelters become less attractive to the homeless.
It's not a failure of the US society. In some parts of the world, which include the US, if you're out on the streets on your ass it's your fault. In other parts of the world, if you're out on the streets on your ass it doesn't matter whose fault it is, we'll take you in. Usually "we" is the family, sometimes "we" is the state.
But it's a feature, not a bug. Some parts of the world are so individualistic that everyone is on their own, for good or bad.
In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month. In rich countries such shacks are illegal and all the regulation and land cost raises minimum rent far above that.
At least 2/3 of homeless are addicted or mentally ill. The fraction that isn't typically doesn't live on the streets for more than a few months.
In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.
I also wonder how much more likely certain countries are to quietly move mental health cases into clinics. This implies a whole lot of things about freedoms and due process.
India has well over a million homeless people, including (by some accounts) over 100,000 in the capital Delhi. I personally remember seeing quite a few people who appeared homeless in Delhi, including families squatting in historical sites (the Old Fort).
There are people making $2000 a year living in heated somewhat comfortable homes. Homeless in the US make more than that just in welfare benefits but they live in tents on the streets
Not in Western Europe, which shows that it is a problem with the US.
Also, the more successful anyone city treats its problem, the worse it becomes if the larger context it exists in doesn’t treat it as well. For example, I read a story about an ex-con who is released from a prison in Texas, is given a bus ticket to go anywhere, and picks Seattle (not having ever been there) because they hear that is the place to be right now (they might have picked LA before). So the problem is influenced by regional and National governments as well, one city or even metro can’t work alone its way out of the problem.
I imagine it’s similar in the UK, just maybe on a smaller case (our problem over here has exploded in the last decade).
In NYC that difference in policy was not anything to do with social welfare payments. It was a reduction in arrests for quality of life crimes. Fewer people in jail, more on the streets. At least in the medium term—-in the decades’ long view the larger change was closing the big mental institutions in favor of “community treatment”.
It’s worth noting that NYC is legally obligated to provide a bed for everyone. The people on the street don’t want to use the shelter system for a mixture of reasons.
Such social services are, themselves, often chains that bind people down. The requirements to receive them often lead people away from incremental work that would allow them to dip their toes in and potentially get back on their feet. Minimum wage laws increase the barriers further for the down and out.
Additionally, there is a kind of depression that hits when you are not providing for yourself. Especially for men.
It's my opinion it's the barriers we build that's the root cause of the cost minimums. The tight and restrictive zoning laws are more to blame for homelessness. Restrictive zoning cause the minimum income level to get housing to be quite elevated, and if you find yourself below that level - you are homeless. Minimum wage barriers to work stem from pricing caused by the zoning. If a society is able to lower that minimum income level significantly, then there will be a lot fewer on the streets.
I always fancied allowing for parking lots that let people live out of their cars, or a tent if you can't manage a car. The lots could charge for rent and provide basic amenities such as bathrooms, wifi, communal kitchen, and maybe power for a heated blanket. Then pretty much any down and out commercial property could be turned into such a lot without much work.
Here the minimum rent is about $1000/mo, if you're willing to be a roommate you can get that down to about $500/mo. A car-turned-home-lot at local real estate prices could support rents as low as $75-100/mo per slot and be quite profitable for the lot owner. If done as a non-profit it could be $40-50/mo at current interest rates. An order of magnitude lower.
Such options give people the dignity and self respect of caring for themselves. And accomplish it at a much much lower cost point. Remove the minimum wage barrier and an individual with no skills but a willingness to work could support himself in a reasonably healthy lifestyle at $4/hr. This would, IMHO, go much further to solving these issues.
I think it’s fair to say that quality of life can reach far and beyond the kind of conditions you’re describing, especially given the surplus of wealth that goes towards other government services. As a taxpayer with representation, I would prefer to see more of my dollars go toward raising the lowest standard, not rationalizing poverty for the sake of an impressive military.
This guy saw a need and did something. Whether it is legal or not, isn’t the question. Why the government isn’t working with him rather than against him is the real question.
Very few people have the balls to even try anything to help, even just giving money. The fact the government doesn’t want to tackle the homeless problem is just another version of “wait until they go away”.
This is not a new problem. Not all homeless people are druggies or crazies. And the homeless problem will only get worse, not better.
It’s too bad Toronto wants to waste time and resources on seeking legal action on the guy for trying to do the right thing.
> Whether it is legal or not, isn’t the question.
I think it's perfectly normal to discuss whether things are legal or not. IANAL but what that person did seems illegal to me.
> Very few people have the balls to even try anything to help, even just giving money.
Would you not agree anyone who pays taxes is technically speaking helping?
> Why the government isn’t working with him rather than against him is the real question.
Many organisations follow very top-down approach and it might be extremely difficult for staff "on the ground" to make big decisions.
Reminds me of this quote:
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
There are many laws which are unjust, what is right and what is legal does not always align. Maybe it was illegal. But should it really be?
To me what this person did looked about as illegal as someone breaking an entry into a burning house to aid the people inside.
What is considered right highly varies by country and culture, when you say "right" to what country/culture do you refer to?
> To me what this person did looked about as illegal as someone breaking an entry into a burning house to aid the people inside.
I am not commenting on the moral side of this persons actions, only the legal side.
But this is a false sense of neutrality and objectivity. Asking about the legality of aiding humans cannot be done without considering the moral side of the law and the moral side of the actions. Especially since the law itself has a moral component.
False according to what/who? For the sake of a good discussion it would be good if you gave some sources. Ie my question to you from a comment above
At no point I said that someone was wrong because they think differently, no need to fight windmills
No. Paying a tax bill doesn't get anyone any karma points for helping anything unless you also get them for every bomb dropped and person executed.
So if you pay taxes in Switzerland you only get good karma points
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdbmLKaGleg
Some interesting notes about the shelters from the video:
- they are on wheels, and because they're off the ground they stay warm and dry even when it's raining
- they can be locked from the outside or inside, which gives people a sense of safety (e.g. people's tents can get slashed up, but these are strong), and they can also safely leave possessions there
- they let people sleep much better (longer, more comfortable)
The amount having these things improves a person's psychological state is immense.
I can't imagine a better and cheaper solution than the man in the article came up with. It's clear the city leaders prefer to stick their head in the sand than to entertain real solutions
I used to have a park near me. It was nice. Now it is a small tent city. I wish my city cared.
In the absence of federal action, the solution thus far has been to use police to harass homeless and keep them moving along or sequestered in certain areas, or to live in suburbs that you need cars to survive in.
Cities that are extremely homeless friendly find themselves with an influx both organically (some choose to relocate themselves) and from other cities.
This is an issue in Portland and SF, to name just two.
Note: I’m not advocating ignoring or not helping the homeless. It’s just a difficult problem.
People who can't contribute within a city, need to be sorted and moved to places where they can contribute in some basic capacity, as simple as working in a grocery store part time in a small town.
It doesn't cost hardly anything to have a small apartment in a small town and have food, a community and a good simple life.
Everyone needs to either contribute, or receive a subsidy from someone who is currently contributing. Society works when people work to make society work. People seem to have lost sight of that.
Do you want to share showers and toilets? Always eat communally? Be without your own refrigerator?
Do you feel comfortable with family and friends staying in these sheds?
Some can be seen on the gofundme.
More info plus video on CBC
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mobile-shelters-homel...
One more;
Welcome to the Toronto slums.
As a side note, it’s often times easier to gauge the bias of a news source by what they deliberately won’t show you, than the entirety of the content they craft to try and persuade you.
They're intended to be temporary shelters, not homes. In any case, isn't the correct comparison to the tent or sleeping bag someone would otherwise be living in?
The major difference being that you aren't locked in. (Side note: I belive you will need a second escape for this to be legal in Norway and a number of other places.)
Furthermore, for the same type of geometry more room means more surface which means either more insulation and higher build cost or not being usable in winter without extra heating.
Also, for reference, my "corona office" that I use now is 1.6mx1.8m and contains a 1.4m desk and a 0.4m width filing cabinet on one wall, a chair in the middle and a bookshelf and an area were I stack plastic boxes behind me. It is cramped and I often opt for the kitchen when I can but when schools are closed it feels like it is the difference between working productively and going nuts.
Most of the people do not want to have random and scruffy-looking shacks on side-walks while they are getting to work in the morning.
The local government is just enforcing that because that's the job they've been elected to do. That might be a hard pill to swallow for somebody who likes to pretend that they care about other people, but, most likely, that municipality will be reelected because most people support what they are doing.
Budgets are very constrained to the amounts permitted by sales, property, and excise taxes with many voters not really wanting to increase the first two. In my city, the city has already closed down 3/4ths of the libraries due to budget constraints.
The cost-benefit analysis of creating subsidized housing oftentimes just doesn’t pan out and there are better uses of city funds —- like on libraries.
We are all responsible at some level for not holding politicians accountable for a problem that they created. The real problem is the long term, destitute, mentally ill homeless. Not the crust kids or the down on their luck people who are out of work. They can be handled mostly with jobs programs, community outreach, and a housing based approach. But the people who are physically incapable of caring for themselves require legal intervention. We used to institutionalize these people, and give them some modicum of a dignified life, but that ended with the Reagan administration [0]. The result is that now we literally treat stray dogs with more compassion in this country.
[0] https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-re...
Options for upgrading the typical tent to shelters, yurts, microhomes would be awesome.
Society should also provide ad hoc sanitation, waste management, misc safety and convenience. These semi permanent encampments should automatically get honeypots, water stations, trash bins, and so forth.
Something, anything. Just to make their lives less terrible, less dangerous.
(anecdote alert) Being old enough to have seen a real sea change in the problem, I'm unconvinced that the town I grew up in (which went from essentially zero homeless people in the 1960s to a very largish and noticeable contingent now) had a huge increase in alcohol/drug abuse, house price to income ratio (I looked it up), ramp up in mentally ill.
It's easy to slide into using changes in the social substrate (single parent households, death of small business, lack of peer pressure, lack of strict law enforcement) as reasons, but then the handwaving just starts all over again.
As far as building small people-boxes is concerned, I've seen that very movie before, and more than once. What usually happens is that some local stores donate materials in order to gain social credit score, people get together over a couple of weekends to screw together moveable teeny-tiny houses, declare victory, in six months the wood has become scrap and is dragged out of the woods or vacant lots bit by bit. I'm not so sure that a favela, if that's really what you want, can be grown inorganically.
Hint: if you announce to the world that you're doing that, there'll suddenly be a lot of homeless people coming from everywhere to partake in your generosity.
As an aside: I'm in need of money, how much are you willing to give me? You'd be resulting in a social problem by not giving me money. Let me know how much you're personally invested in solving social problems.
If you think it's an absurd ask, I agree. That's exactly how I feel about the homeless. If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to, anymore than I get to take some of your money because you happen to have more.
Did I make any mention of spending to solve the problem? No, I didn't so quit putting words in my mouth.
Making economic migrants of everyone is not a good solution. Believe it or not, some people have roots in their communities. Not to mention cities are where jobs and amenities are. What, is everybody going to move to Barrie all of a sudden? Terrible idea and 100% lacking in empathy or good sense. Oh also I don't know if you noticed but the housing crisis is national now.
> they still mostly use a 1960's era city plan that forbids dense residential development in most areas.
I big source of homelessness is... well... simply being priced out of living somewhere.
> If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to
I don’t think most people live where they do out of some sense of entitlement. They just live there because that’s what they once could afford or where they found work. Losing one’s home can also mean losing one’s job and ultimately homelessness. Bad city planning only worsens income inequality and the only ones benefitting from this are landlords and speculators.
Also you seem to be responding to things the original poster didn’t say.
I built over twenty of these mobile nanoshelters so far. $155 each. The excuse of not a long term solution equates to corrupt morals and could be a sign of anti human bias or some mental issue.
Think about all the other problems that this create for the other inhabitants related to hygiene, trash, ...
Similarly parks are parks, and woods are woods, if you setup slum houses there, they are not parks and become towns...
When people in charge do not care, some people have the courage to look for achievable betterment. If I was homeless, I would really prefer the dog house and I would be glad somebody really cared. Plus they look great.
Shanty towns aren't a solution but they are the best achievable solution to the people that build them.
Or is it really a lack of care or do homeless people have the social role of reminding working people what could happen to them if they decided to did not want to do that shitty job anymore ?
I am aware that homelessness is problem that is more complex than it seems. Unsurprisingly, those who fall into homelessness, generally start in life some kind of handicap whether it is a psychological, social or physical handicap. Drug abuse is a real problem but experiments show that a more stable and less stressful life leads to reduced and better drug use patterns rather than buy all the drug you can because there might be no tomorrow. I won't go into discussing whether drug abuse is a cause or consequence of homelessness as it can be both or none. Having said all that, I doubt there's any political will to "solve" as those people don't vote, just get the cops to make them go away from the places where people who vote live. But It's possible I am being cynical.
The article claims there is insulation in the units he built, vapor barriers. This is a massive difference over a tent. A live-or-die difference, especially if one is sick with a cold or flu.
For example you can lock them. This gives other opportunities than a tent.
They give better protection against the elements. So the body will have less stress giving the mind more focus on planning ahead.
Homeless people are in survival mode all the time. A tiny firm shelter can change that mode. This is also the reason why 'housing first' projects work. They take away the survival mode and make thinking about the future an option again.
[0] https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/community-partners/a...
We have society/tax/government sponsored homeless shelters, food points, social workers etc etc. But it is obviously not enough because every "system" is generalization -> some or most cases are resolved but some cases are lost.
More, having "help system" sometimes PROHIBITS real help, example: article above ! It is epidemy and they prohibit more then sensible help ! Possible fire problem ? Or just someone didn't like this ? Other example: some baker was giving free food to poor peoples and government tax institution send him to court because someone (poor people) gained somerealynothing and no tax was paid... - beyound stupidity or evil .
Even more: when there is official help system some people take it as excuse for not doing personal help, eg: "GO TO FOOD POINT YOU $%%*(&^". Socialism mentality is like this. Plus corruption acceptance, IMO always.
Help systems are part of our better civilisation. But preventing personal help is effective destroying that civilisation.
My proposition: every city clerk take one mini-wooden-shelter with homeless person on his house front grass lawn. And providing some food for your poor neighber is pretty obvious, right ?
I think a civil war is exactly what the CCP wants (obviously) and is fomenting. It would destroy us. Ww3 would probably unify us, but carries huge risks. Fun times.
I think they'd rather we slowly wound down in a predictable fashion.
We really are better than ants though. And individual human lives have value. There is no reason for war to resolve our technical issues. The economy is a technical and logistical problem.
This issue is more complex than it appears. The catchall phrase 'homeless' doesn't begin to describe the three horsemen of the unsheltered apocalypse: Substance abuse, Serious mental illness and indigents.
While the shelters are often very rough drug dens, ironically many substance abuse casualties refuse care and walk out of other services facilities because they won't or can't abide by the sobriety rules.
I'm very enthusiastic about firms like palletshelter.com because local authorities can quickly set up their heat & ac equipped tiny homes on local land and infrastructure to serve the three distinct group's very different needs. What doesn't work is allowing addicts to camp out in downtown areas for obvious hygiene and practical reasons. This chap who is using his carpentry skills to 'help the homeless' is arguably a well meaning co dependent.
California is an absolute disaster area right now, with half the USA homeless and more coming, 13 billion spent in the last three years on a problem that is getting worse, and the misguided 'housing first' dogma dominating political decision making. The sooner we start behaving responsibly towards the unsheltered and take their disparate issues and needs seriously in the western world the sooner we can begin to tackle this huge issue. Building favelas and skid rows in major cities is a recipe for disaster and so are attempts to provide free housing for everyone who doesn't have one for obvious economic and behavioral/medical reasons.
https://vimeo.com/532718306 Venice Beach in LA 2021
It is responsibility of city hall to provide basic infrastructure. That includes showers and toilets!
Indeed. It must be unacceptable for everyone. Drugs, like religion, is a cancer of society.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/23/us/fentanyl-overdoses-san...
Where is "obvious ... reasons" being applied in this sentence - to the people's lack of housing, or to the problems with building housing for all?
'Housing first': the economics of providing free housing has been historically demonstrated by then mayor of San Francisco Newsom, who pledged to 'end homelessness' 17 years ago. https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/A-decade-of-homeles... The result was an expensive disaster - the more housing was provided for the 'homeless', the more people came to get free housing in a temperate climate with a casual attitude to drug use.
Last year Newsom as California governor used billions of covid relief money to buy motels under 'project homekey'and is planning more of this spending in 2021 in a repeat of his San Francisco Mayor disster. Housing 31 people in hotel room 'homes' locally to where I am sitting now cost around 18m, just over a half million per person plus annual service costs - 3 hot meals a day delivered from a local restaurant (Mexicans who immigrated illegally and now run a thriving business).
In the western world urban centers the homeless migrate to, housing and utility costs are very high compared to the rest of the world. LA beachfront housing is famously high, yet local politicians are packing Venice Beach and other areas with street dwellers.
'Housing first' is an academic philosophy originating in 1980's UK that suggests that public spending to give permanent free housing to the homeless is a viable solution as that de stresses the person being housed and 'allows them to get back on their feet' in society, solving their SMI and substance abuse issues. This has been proven over and over again to be the wrong answer while being blindingly expensive and effectively advertising free houses through the grapevine.
Well meaning compassionate people buy in to politicians saying these things (and arguably become co dependents to those for whom obtaining drugs for their habit is paramount). All too often politicians create a Potemkin village housing a few homeless in show homes to parade in their media while ignoring the rest, all while quietly cutting housing costs elsewhere. An example is these San Francisco housing projects residents discussing how they may be evicted after the pandemic.
As I said previously the answer is mobile home/tiny home facilities on public land/infrastructure run at a federal level to prevent mass migrations to where the grass is greenest, and large scale spending on substance abuse and SMI care in separate locations.