A stranger secretly lived in my home
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The funniest bit about this is how I discovered he did this, one day I got up too early thinking I was late, rushed out and drove off without my usual morning routine and when I heard a voice behind me asking if he could please get out of the car, my heart nearly stopped :)
This was around 1989, the location is Veemarkt in Amsterdam ('Veemarkt' is dutch for cattle market).
Back then homeless people in Amsterdam were fairly rare, now there are 100's of them.
One funny angle is that I was living there illegally myself, I didn't have a kitchen or a place to shower there and it being so quiet is why I got away with that. The people from other companies in that building knew that I was staying there overnight, but they in turn also didn't mind because they saw me as their 'free nightwatch', so there is some recurring element in there.
Anyway, it's ages ago, and if it happened today I'm not sure how I would respond, and I always wondered what happened to him but I did not see him after I moved (I went all the way to Poland).
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3679788,4.9392218,3a,75y,187...
My unit was the one one from the corner on top (the entrance was at the back), about 60 square meters, an early version of a hackerspace I guess, and the bike path on the left wasn't there at the time, that's where there was parking space.
Now there are a few thousand people living on the other side of the street so you would never get away with it today anyway, someone would spot you there before the first day was out.
On the plus side: plenty of ventilation ;)
Someone smashed my window, and someone stole my radio. (I knew the cops wouldn't do anything besides laugh.)
Didn't care about the radio, but that window bothered me.
I decided to keep the doors unlocked, and carried a portable radio to work. (Too cheap to pay for parking.)
I put a sign on the rear window, "Please go ahead and sit in the truck, or sleep in the bed, but Don't Break Anything. Everything is unlocked."
It was an old Toyota, and it had a kill switch hidden.
Never had a problem again.
There were days when I would find cash in the glove box. I don't think it was tip. I think my truck was being used as a drug drop, but didn't care.
That could actually end up getting you in legal trouble, and at the least get your car seized.
He didn’t take anything even though he could have easily made off with tens of thousands of dollars of electronics. He just needed somewhere to sleep.
We had a guy walk into our office behind employees. No one challenged the trespasser... he walked off with a stack of laptops.
So one day two guys drive up with a van, park it at a loading dock, go into the warehouse and start loading the van with coffee. They even got help from some workers. Turns out they weren't related to any customers at all, they just stole a van full of coffee.
Which wouldn't be worth a story... But two weeks later, the same guys did the exact same thing again, at the same logistics center. Successfully, again. That takes some nerve.
Reminds me of that scene from Trailer Park Boys
I disagree. Sleeper guy wanted to crash & didn't want their hardware. There wasn't meaningful risk.
I think we make the mistake that perceiving risk makes it real. It's reality that determines our actual risk tho.
We should be viewing these situations as a cry for help instead of a criminal activity. This is what I hoped the "Defund the Police" movement was targeting. Sadly that phrase had good intentions but pretty bad optics.
You're right. When we uphold a law for the law's sake, we've lost our way.
The value of a local, penalty-backed law is in it's ability to guide bulk behavior. These laws imply a bargain we make with our governments, that enforcement will be limited to the stated objective.
Reducing traffic speeds by citing a few speeders - this upholds that bargain. Citing every possible speeder while those fines fatten the police budget is a gross perversion.
What I found really effective were traffic lights with speed meters that would turn red for five seconds if you were over the limit. No cameras, no fines, no police.
I understand why people opt for the highways and paying a small amount now vs a bigger unexpected bill later on.
Another example of government policies and taxpayers money aiding private companies the government sold something to (they used to be public).
I don't know. I feel that the citing every speeder is overall better than selectively catching a few speeders. First, it's fairer, leaving less space for selective enforcement based on arbitrary criterion. Second, based on my experience on US highway, the latter isn't very effective. While I usually cruise at speed limit, vehicles rush past me at 80~90 mph every day.
I certainly don't agree with the idea that police should give fines as much as possible to make profits. But it's equally wrong to deliberately reduce the amount of enforcement, because less enforcement leads to less profit.
In my opinion, enforcement is enforcement; the profit-making problem shouldn't even be a consideration when we decide how enforcement is carried out. It should be dealt with separately.
However, my world view is that all rules should be written to be broken in the right hands, with just enough pressure for someone who shouldn’t be breaking the rule to be discouraged from doing so. Nothing is perfect in life anyway, and you can never truly capture a complex world, so I think you might as well consider it in rulemaking.
That said, it does open the world to profiling, but that will already happen regardless. Racists will always find a way to be racist.
Tying budget to citations is a perversion. Applying the law equally to everyone is just. You're conflating two issues.
Other people, like the NYTimes, believe it literally means abolish the police: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4agyzq/a-homeless-mississipp...
A relative who is a policeman knows 2-3 guys too old to migrate south for the winter who commit some misdemeanor in front of a cop to spend the winter at the county lockup.
Beat officers often feed these guys and help them out in small ways.
It appears he really badly wanted the position...
Tent, free wifi, showers next to the bike room, full kitchen and big 80 inch TVs down in the conference rooms. He was livin' the life. He said he usually took down the tent and hid everything every morning but just got complacent.
*Yes. His house. She told the cops she felt in danger. Cops told him he had to stay somewhere else and go through the eviction process. Mad world.
The pendulum needed to swing toward protecting women by default. As these things happen, it may have swung to a point where nuance needs to be applied.
Your example seems fairly complex. I couldn't opine on it w/o knowing the details of the complaint.
I can offer a different example. My ex's mental illness sometimes required me to take a stronger hand in her life, than would be benign otherwise. One time, she was in a delusional state. She stole my van and left the area. I wasn't able to report it stolen because she was my wife. The police were protecting her from the possibility that I was lying and using the police to harass her.
A stranger found her in the middle of the night, hundreds of miles away, in a remote area wrapped only in a towel - obviously not herself. I directed the guy to call the police because he could do that. Local cops delivered her to a facility where she was stabilized.
What I would change is that I would have had tightly limited status as her caregiver. I'd want my wife and I to be regularly evaluated by a female mental health professional, who had training to detect manipulative spouses. In cases where my wife might be in distress, police would defer to me. Meanwhile the details would be immediately forwarded to the MH pro overseeing my spouse, who'd have authority to intervene, if she saw an issue.
He owned the house. If she felt in danger, the cops should come and escort her out of the house that doesn't belong to her. I don't see how your story is related to this.
We don't live in minority report, so he's not an aggressor.
Surely what you've got here is evidence that we do live in minority report.
(We don't, but I guess what I'm suggesting is that you're stating something in flat contradiction of the facts presented above; if this event happening means "we are living in minority report", well then, here we are living in minority report)
Which I'm fine with, it still seems to be a reasonable heuristic given how imbalanced I believe domestic abuse is. But obviously it's unjust in some cases, and not useful for same sex relationships. Let's strive for a world where as many women as men own shared housing and act abusive towards their spouse.
Domestic abuse has been ignored for too long and I'm glad women are being listened to. Men are still rarely listened to. Look at Johnny Depp for one.
The police / legal system is biased against men, from "always believe her" to "she gets to live with the kids and his expenses" to "you were married so you have to keep paying to maintain her life quality after marriage".
The problem with bias is that it creates economic incentives for women to lie their way to the life they want. You married a rich guy and you're bored because he's always working and he's never home? A small lie and you'll get him out of the house, pronto!
I think we should revert to property ownership in this case. If she feels unsafe, she can leave. If she is a 50% owner I can understand removing the suspected abuser from the premise. Unless she can't prove abuse I think she should pays the lodging fees though, for example by losing a small portion of the shares in the house. If she owns the house 100% he should just leave.
No, I don't. Which is why I said "I suspect the man would draw the short straw regardless of the ownership situation." But I think domestic violence initiated by men is a bigger societal issue than women lying their way to the life they want.
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this statement. Are you saying that men should receive unequal treatment from police in these matters?
The alternative is that one partner can abuse the other, then throw them out on the street if they wish or if the victim complains.
I think it would be better if there was a real third option, but I’m not aware of it.
use the reclaimed former tax revenue to maintain separate apartments longer, even if just a bedroom one rents.
As for your second sentence- the total value of the US real estate market is about $56 trillion, so I kind of doubt that the government is going to make much of a dent here. There's not a lot of places where you can say even the US government doesn't have enough money, but....
Thats literally what happened here. You have a blindspot to men being the victim like the person here was.
There's no pendulum, there's just doing the right thing and the wrong thing. Doing something wrong in the other direction is just as bad.
Something can be the best available policy and also cause to poor outcomes in some situations.
> I got a puppy. While she was being toilet-trained, I kept her in the bathroom. One day, when I was out, the apartment flooded. I came home to find the puppy in the sink. She was tiny. I didn’t know how she could have got up there unless someone had put her there to save her.
So I was I think at in-and-out, and a homeless guy was going through the garbage bin to find food. When I came over to dump my stuff in the bin, he was immediately considerate and stepped aside so I could dump the covers and napkins, whilst making sibilant sounds and keeping his gaze down in a strangely submissive manner. And then the staff came over and tried to make him leave the place. I recall he said no actual word but put a mild challenge with more sibilant sounds but eventually left. And I remember thinking, well, he smelled and I tried to avoid physical contact, but was there really a need to make him leave, and take away what small dignity the world had assigned him? Clearly mentally off, I don't know, but trying to survive in the way that he can. But I find myself thinking again what I thought then -- there, but for the grace of god go I
Another point is that in most countries outside of the US, panhandlers are either "working for themselves" and make decent money, perhaps better than at a low-end job while having proper living arrangements, etc (and thus "rob" the true poor from the donation). It can also be worse, with situations where panhandlers are actually curated by an organizer who pays them a salary and takes a profit. The latter schemes are also mixed up in exploitation.
Now that I type it all out, I am realizing that buying a meal also prevents the second scenario too. Good stuff.
You buy a McD combo drop it off and feel good. They have to eat it right away. There stomach will not be able to handle it all. They cannot save split the food.
If you give them money they could still dumpster dive for food, keep the money and buy other things they need like (maxi pads, or 1 food bar every morning for a week or a stamp to mail someone or quarters to make a call). They can buy a smaller meal or food in a form that will allow them to space it out over time. Most importantly they can buy the type of food that works best from them.
5 dollars could have multiplier effect. A pre-purchased fast food meal will leaving the homeless person craving for days.
The homeless are drinking/doing drugs less than homed people drinking/doing drugs because they don't have the resources. I would be concerned with salaried beggers.
One of my passing thoughts is that recycling could be a way to keep people occupied and also perform an extremely useful service. That is, expand on this.
The cynic in me, however, feels that this would turn into a dystopian nightmare rather quickly.
You'll put your trash out for pickup day, and a significant portion of the time, someone will come and go through it. And often as they are going through it, they will just throw random things on the ground. So our little side street kind of has a constant layer of trash.
The city does employ people to come through and pick it up, and they do that regularly, but they would have to do it daily to really keep the street clean. I think they come more like weekly.
Tangentially, I was walking my dog this morning, and had to ensure she didn't step on the used hypodermic needle on the sidewalk. Nothing covering the needle. This happens all the time.
Right now they are at least 3 tents on my small side street block.
For businesses, like if you were at an In-n-out you must have been at Fishermans wharf, that's the only one in SF. They regularly have to ask people to leave who are acting in various disruptive ways, and bothering their customers.
A few years back, I was sitting at a bar in SF, that had outdoor tables. I think I was on a first (and only) date. I guy walked up, took my dates glass of white wine, drank the whole thing down, and then said "I'm an alcoholic". And then just stood there looking at us.
(Also as someone who's lived in San Francisco for years, I just can't help but be triggered when someone says San Fran.)
Sure, but who is ultimately responsible for this, the people going through the trash, or the people who have structured our society in such a way that there are people who think their best option in life is to scavenge other people's trash? Because I'm pretty sure that the people going through the trash would stop in an instant if they were offered a better alternative.
Mostly, yes. Having been homeless myself for an extended period, I saw just how much mental illnesses impact so many people experiencing homelessness.
In my completely unscientific lodgings with them, I'd say its probably around 30% of the people have some sort of debilitating mental illness. I had other reasons for homelessness (lost job, eviction) which are much more mechanical and easier to fix.
I've talked with my SO about the mentally ill on the streets, and the only plan that seems to might work is to forcefully treat them, get them mentally sound, explain their whole situation, and have them choose. It would be in writing, and sealed with a palmscan. And I get that forcefully treating them once may be considered abhorrent, but they are not able in their state of mind to make decisions for themselves.
Once they're of sound mind, they should then have complete agency to choose to remain on the streets, or to obtain emergency services to get out of homelessness.
For folks who need meds, getting them to stay on them can be hugely difficult. It's even harder when that person lacks shelter and support.
I don't understand what I said somehow excludes helping in other ways.
My views are probably a bit more radical, in that I think that everyone should have free food. Homeless, homeful, working, unemployed, citizen, foreigner. Everyone. No exceptions. And, we already have a basis to maintain this system - SNAP.
So when I talked about how to help those whom are experiencing homelessness combined with debilitating mental illnesses, I'm talking of making that program... Not by destroying other programs.
Can't tell if I'll offer that idea again, once I think about it.
I live in one of the southern US states that tends to be hostile towards people in need. My kids and I had on-and-off hunger 2008-2018.
In the Bay Area there are plenty of ways to get fed. Happy to be shown I'm wrong, but I don't think it's common to be lacking for food.
The way - the only way - my homelessness ended is I had help.
It's not about getting someone healthy, it's about getting them to a point that they are of sound enough mind that they can make rational decisions.
If you hear voices that tell you that antipsychotic medication is going to kill you, you won't take it. The idea that you're choosing to not take medication of your free will is wrong - your free will is compromised by a mental illness so severe that your perception of reality isn't even correct. How can you possibly decide what's best for yourself if you can't accurately understand the world around you?
The point of this kind of forced treatment is to get people into a state where their brain isn't lying to them and they have a basic understanding of what's happening, so that they can then make decisions.
The folks who say it's unethical to force this kind of treatment sound like they're sticking up for folks with severe mental illness, but they're really just condemning them to suffer from that mental illness for life, because without some kind of outside help they simply can't take the actions needed to stop suffering from it, because it prevents them from doing so.
The difference is very striking compared with Boston (a city with similar climate to Oslo) where there are many obviously mentally ill people wandering around talking nonsense, begging for money, carrying their things in plastic bags, and sleeping on the ground.
Most people who enter homelessness leave it within a couple of weeks. That’s because these are people like you and me who due to unlucky bad circumstances are out on the street. They want to get back on their feet so they take advantage of social services, don’t have drug addictions or mental illnesses, and maybe have broader support structure through friends and family.
Then you have about 40% of the chronically homeless who are unfortunately not served well by the public services. These folks have mental illness that is left untreated and it’s sad to see them die slowly on the streets. These are fellow humans who are mentally incapable of making decisions, and they need full time care or something that puts them in a safer environment. We have ignored mental illness in this country.
The remainder is basically people who willingly want to be homeless and do drugs. They won’t enter shelters because you can’t do drugs there. They won’t take up temporary housing because the hosts ask for basic decency like no raging inside.
I think we need to make a clear separation between mentally ill/addicts and those who want to just do their own thing. Ultimately I’m paying A LOT in taxes and I feel that I have a right to access the public parks and not have to deal with belligerent people who pose a safety threat to the community. I can excuse the folks with mental illnesses or drug addiction as I believe we have an opportunity to help them - but if some folks adamantly refuse help then I’m not going to settle for letting public places just become dumping grounds.
I'm a bit skeptical of the "Most" claim but it's based on anecdotal evidence from recent years of interacting with our sizable homeless community. I haven't seen any stats.
> They want to get back on their feet so they take advantage of social services
While the first part is undeniably true, the latter depends on the availability or existence of social services. Southern US states are openly hostile toward folks with long term vulnerabilities. Where services exist, politicians here proudly trim them back where they can.
>and maybe have broader support structure through friends and family.
My mom rescued me from homelessness when I was a teenager. The odds of escaping homelessness without help are ~0.
the skepticism is justified by simply defining homelessness as being without a home for more than a few weeks (the 'usual' definition, tbh) thus making gp's statement obviously false, i suppose.
yes some people have more pull than others, maybe a lot more, but even the president doesnt have that kind of ability to "structure" the day to day reality of average people ina generalized way
That is ridiculous. Our society is governed by laws and social norms. Those are not handed down from heaven by the gods, they are made by people. Yes, it's true that "the people who structure society" is not a small or easily-identifiable group. That doesn't mean that this group of people does not exist. It most assuredly does (and if you are on HN you are probably a member of that group).
I certainly don't wake up in the morning and ordain where people get there food from even if I'm an incremental part of structures that have some influence on the economics of America (all voters are)
> That doesn't mean that this group of people does not exist.
This logic sounds a whole lot like what a moon landing denier would say. I'm not saying you are in that group but the line of reasoning is the same.
What are panhandling ordinances if not exactly that?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-has-an-unpre...
So it's not for lack of spending. But 40 years ago, we decided to downzone the city because we don't like even mid-rise buildings, and then we got a massive jobs boom.
Combine a huge amount of wealth creation, with a very constrained housing supply, and you're going to have price shocks, which will push the most vulnerable out on the streets. That's what we see.
And I happen to live in the neighborhood that that used to be much more light industrial, and happens to have the most shelters and services for anyone experiencing homelessness. Generally the others parts of the city fight against any kind of shelters or services... so it all ends up here.
I, for one, would like to live in a city where I can eat/drink outside without fear of someone stealing my food.
Not in any city where I have had a drink in a pavement café! Not even in the US.
You might be interested in this:
[Disclosure: that is my movie.]
I have a friend that wasn't homeless, but all unemployment money was used on rent required to keep his shared custody (without an apartment to house the kids, you cannot have custody). He always was clean and used good clothes, but he made the line with homeless people to get free food daily. Otherwise he wouldn't have money to eat.
He said that the worst part of all was the look from voluntary women that were working on the food delivery organization. Each woman reacts differently to men. But he says that this is completely different. The look is like if he wasn't even a man - it's like they are feeding a lesser species. He says that he have never experienced the same reaction from women in other contexts, and that it hurts. It steals away all feeling of manliness. Luckily he got out of that situation many years ago.
An alternative explanation could be that the women thought he was abusing the service to get free food even if he didn't need it, and thus put on some faces that he misinterpreted.
A homeless person was going through the garbage in the middle of a fast food restaurant... yeah, I assume that would be off-putting to customers & detrimental to their business.
This is it I think: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24889337
Turns out that one can easily find more than one such story, DDG even helpfully suggests the remaining keywords.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/escape-to-berli...
https://www.inquirer.com/news/the-secret-apartment-vet-stadi...
He eventually got an apartment, and I ran into him in that neighborhood so we knew he was really out. I'm not sure what his situation was, we were all quite well paid by local standards.
I like to imagine that the visiting professor would come back with some other faculty/staff member in tow saying, "I tell you, he's HERE! sleeping in the lounge!" only to be treated like Big Bird trying to show people Snuffleupagous.
When workers showed up, they would be 1 or 2 wrappings on the floor and other minor things people would not take major notice of.
He got caught because the night crew schedule was changed and never posted, he was found walking in his night cloths.
He was a in his (low 20s) lived in a forgotten attic above the main store. Seemed he was an ex-employee who had setup a nice small apartment up there. Had a bed, small frig and a TV. He lived there for years.
They never prosecuted him because the company would be embarrassed.
These days I would think that would be very hard to do with all the cameras around.
I know this because I worked at that store right after he got caught when I was very young.
The quality is deteriorating...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
About quality I guess is subjective but I would say there are two options here:
- use the voting system to accommodate it to your quality standards
- don't visit the page
The downvoting seems increasingly bizarre. I have a post on this page downvoted; I said the post above was reasonable.
The reasonable post was correcting me; it brought up a point I had missed.