Mobile showers for San Francisco's homeless | Hacker News Reader

Mobile showers for San Francisco's homeless

bbc.co.uk

101 pointsnkhumphreys54 comments

I was homeless (living in a bus) with my girlfriend in San Francisco two years ago for 6 months and finding showers and shaving was one of the more difficult of necessities. There was a homeless facility in our neighbourhood (the Mission) that offered showers on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I usually went once a week. There was also girls only facility that my girlfriend used on Wednesday. Theoretically We could have taken the muni to other parts of the city for showers on other days, but the time and effort is usually not worth it (there is usually some 1-2 hours of waiting list involved). Other times we went to San Francisco State University for a shower. Although it's far away, the facilities are so comfy and sufficient compared to the homeless facilities that it is worth the trip, especially for shaving.

Toilets were less of a problem, we used cafés, public parks, constructions porter potties (non-padlocked), and grocery stores. And laundry was no problem at all (we just used the coin-ups).

I definitely agree with greater variability of sanitation possibilities. Especially when it comes to showers.

Thank you for sharing. Would you be willing to share more of your story: how did you become homeless in SF, and how did you eventually change the situation? Are you in the tech industry?

In my (probably limited) view, SF homeless are primarily the folks around Tenderloin that seem unfortunately abandoned by the society.

As I'm sure many of us would like to help the overall situation (even if it's by donating to the right groups), it would be eye-opening to hear more of a first-person account from someone actually on HN.

Well, I was immigrating to USA from Iceland to live with my girlfriend who was studying at SF-State. She had only a room that she was renting, and her landlord didn't want an extra person staying there. We decided to by a VW van simply to avoid paying rent. It was a really good decision. We didn't have much money, but had enough to live comfortably. In fact it is really easy to live in San Francisco without spending any money. I cooked for food not bombs, we dumpster-dove at Rainbows, got more fruit and veggies at The free farmstand, and went out to dinner every Tuesday at Curry without Worry (I recommend it for everybody). I even acquired my tech skills at Noisebridge.

We had a kitchen in our bus, so we cooked most of our food. We even made homemade jam and tried to make granola in our van. We had a french press, on sometimes invited friends and our neighbours over for coffee. We even had internet most of the time (donated by friendly neighbours at the pipe organ factory).

We had planned for me to successfully immigrate (that is legally, we got married and all) but the bureaucracy and the money and uncertainty it would have taken was overwhelming (marriage is not enough if you don't have money). So we just decided for me to stay there illegally while she finished her school.

We moved to Reykjavík before I had overstayed for too long (6 months have no severe consequences for a white boy like me), where I work at a small startup as a web-developer and designer. It was really wonderful times. In fact the freedom of owning your own place (that is our car) was awesome. Of course there were difficult moments, not being able to shower frequently was one of them. But all in all the experience was good.

As for whom to help if you care about the homeless. In my view just general good manners are always the first thing that I thing of. Not to call the police on people would be a good start. Oh yes, and if you have a business that throws away food don't lock the dumpstes. Organizations like Food not Bombs, and Homes not Jails are really helpful. Of course my experience is radically different from people that become homeless out of desperation, and in fact their experience is radically different from people that become homeless out of drug addiction or mental health problems (which is also a really varied group).

Fascinating story. The one "homeless" person I know firsthand is also doing it by choice. He's employed, and simply chooses to be homeless because it's not a very difficult life for him. Meals at the community kitchen or the restaurant where he works as a cook, showers at friends homes, or the local university student rec center, sleep with friends, in the park, or at one of the many university buildings that are unlocked 24x7.

> We moved to Reykjavík before I had overstayed for too long

What was the immigration situation like for ever going the other way? Less painful than the US process I'm assuming?

If you're looking for a good place to donate, try Greensboro Housing Coalition: http://greensborohousingcoalition.com

GHC is a non-profit in Greensboro, NC that my stepmother founded 25 years ago. They dedicate their lives to the idea that everyone deserves safe housing, regardless of their income level.

They are able to commit over 85% of their their funding to their mission, which is absolutely amazing and only possible because of the tremendous and often thankless efforts put forth by the entire staff. You will not be wasting your money.

    In my (probably limited) view, SF homeless are primarily
    the folks around Tenderloin that seem unfortunately
    abandoned by the society.

Couldn't be more wrong IMHO.

I lived in the tenderloin for a year, most if not all are by choice. I had also the opportunity to talk with few (the friendly and not too crazy one) and they wouldn't take back a "normal" life.

I'm not saying that for ALL is the same, but from my experience I can say that probably 60% are drugs/alcohol addicts 8% do that by choice, 30% totally crazy (most seems from abuse of durgs), 2% left back.

Anyone who is left to openly suffer under an addiction, mental [or otherwise] illness, or who is left to believe that being homeless is somehow a better life than they might have otherwise, is being abandoned by society.

Addiction is not a choice. Mental illness is not a choice. And having your soul crushed to the point where you find it less humiliating to remain homeless, is not a choice.

In my experience, the only people who truly choose to be homeless are people who have advantages that they give away due to some ideal that they think they'll achieve by living a humbler life. These people might not have a home, but they also aren't disadvantaged the way other homeless are. Making this distinction is important, as it cuts to the heart of real homelessness: an inability to help oneself. And that's why society is supposed to help.

I have a friend with a lot of homeless experience in a ~55k person city in NJ. He told me there are some people who feel a social bond, the homeless have de facto leaders and people with social capital within the population. My friend said one of the people told him he would never go back because he felt like it was going from a place where he mattered to a complete nobody.

So your assessment is that 98% of the homeless have drug/alcohol problems or are homeless by 'choice' ?

I've offered showers to homeless people where I live, but had to discontinue that after I had my bathroom wrecked by one.

I thought this was why they invented 24 Hour Fitness? $35/mo for all the showers you can take.

I live and work in San Francisco and have tweeted many times about the extreme lack of public restrooms and the overwhelming amount of human waste littered across our beautiful city.

We have an incredibly large transient population and yet there are hardly any public restrooms. It's an all too common site to see someone squatting down in the middle of the sidewalk relieving themselves.

We pride ourselves on being the Florence of the Digital Renaissance yet we can't provide for the basic human needs of our citizens.

For a while I've been looking for ways that I can make a big difference in cleaning up our city and this project is the catalyst that I've been looking for.

This morning my mind is on fire w/ ideas thanks to the inspiration provided by http://www.lavamae.org/.

As a person which has adopted San Francisco as my city and the place where I'm raising my son I thank you greatly!

:-]

[EDIT]

* Fixed broken URL

It's worth reading this article: http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/3758-why-is-there-so-m...

Homeless people were using the BART escalators as restrooms at night... causing them to break down. The solution? Multi-million dollar covers to stop people getting down there at night – not a considerably smaller sum for public restrooms.

This speaks to the psychology. There is still a population in SF that believes homelessness is a choice. And that facilities encourage homelessness. There is another segment that believes SF already shoulders a disproportionate amount of dealing homelessness. There are a lot of people that just find them annoying.

I'm always surprised how many locals don't believe Civic or Tenderloin is ever going to change. Why? Zoning, regulations – but mostly because it's always been that way.

So, yeah. I don't quite understand it either.

Civic or Tenderloin is ever going to change. Why?

Because the city and the electorate lack the will to deal with the problem vs doing little feel-good things that dance around the edges.

I think this is a simplification of the problem. I don't think (yes I'm one that thinks most are by choice) is a problem can be solved easily if not at all.

The current solution is put a "Twitter" in a bad area and construct new buildings around. So far seems is working.

I can say that people here are the most friendly ever seen so far (I'm european and I traveled a lot Europe, can't say about others places in the us).

So, I fatigue to think that San Franciscans are "bad" and they left most behind.

IMHO part of the problem is an heritage of and old lifestyle (especially with drugs).

What really upset me a bit is that here these people have no social care for their mental issues. Some are quite dangerous and I got really scared few times when I lived in tenderloin.

Not sure I follow. You're calling this a simplification, but your synopsis isn't that much more complex.

Plus, you think that most are by choice. However, you also point out lack of support for mental issues. I personally find this a contradiction – if you've got serious mental issues and no support, then the ability to choose is basically void.

See, they choose to be homeless in San Francisco. They could have chosen to be homeless elsewhere.

Homeless tend to flock to where it's easiest to be homeless. Definitely seen this where I live, over the past 10 years the city has devoted considerable resources to "homelessness" and during the same interval our homeless population has exploded. Used to be able to walk around downtown and never be bothered, now panhandlers are everywhere and even assault and robbery (previously almost unheard of) are more regular.

Just gate off the street entrances to the BART stations along Market Street and in the Mission. Problem solved.

I would really (ideally) like the urban BART stations to have restrooms, but unless the authorities are going to make sure they are clean, safe and sanitary, that's not going to work.

The restrooms in the downtown SF BART stations were open to the public before 9/11. They were closed and never reopened.

Public restrooms have a long history of challenges. Some cities take those challenges on, and some don't.

Things that I've noted as challenges (unordered) are; gang tagging/claiming, people sleeping in them, cleaning them, equipment damage, supplies (toilet paper, hand drying), and water wastage.

I wonder sometimes if squat toilets are a better solution for public restrooms with a varied population. Given they are pretty straight forward to clean from a distance with a hose.

Americans are probably too fat on average for squat toilets to be a feasible solution.

Not homeless Americans (though that's just an impression - IU'm not aware of statistics).

Also, I think squat toilets might actually work well for fat people anyway.

Didn't bart used to have restrooms on every station until 9/11 ?

Anyways, Palo Alto has a bunch of public ones and all of them are damn gross. Worse than civic center plaza. I wonder how hard (expensive) is it to keep them clean.

Even BART elevators (at least in the urban core) are nasty and practically toilets. Just try taking the elevator at Oakland Coliseum or Civic Center. There needs to be strict policing of public accommodations (and I use the term policing in a generic sense), but the political will to do so isn't here in the Bay Area. Just look at the freakout over homeless people squatting in the downtown BART stations.

Really? Hardly any? I would consider it rude not to offer free restroom in a shopping centre, although it's far too common in a fast-food joint (they aren't really any better than the ones that are truly public.)

It's certainly a feel-good story, but I'd like to hear more about how they intend to handle the "dirty details" that effectively destroy public restrooms. Is it basically like a public restroom with a full-time attendant who polices and cleans full time?

Until they disclose the details, it's not even much of a feel-good story. How is the full-time attendant going to clean dirty needles out of the toilet? Maybe that's where the "policing" aspect comes into play? But how many transients are okay with being watched in a bathroom? The SF public library was forced to install sewage grinders to handle the "dirty details." - http://sfist.com/2013/08/27/were_doomed_sf_main_library_bath...

Just screw sharps bins to the walls like Sydney's public bathrooms do.

Thise restrooms with sharps bins are handily identified on maps.

https://toiletmap.gov.au/Mobile?state=New%20South%20Wales&lo...

It's part of the (I think) community sharps disposal programme. http://www.communitysharps.org.au/resources/disposal-options

People addicted to drugs take drugs. We need to recognise that, and reduce the harm they do to others. Needle-stick injuries are a significant concern to a wide range of low pay workers, so better needle disposal programmes are a good idea.

Yeah, its why I'm not disappointed that the restrooms in BART's Market Street stations are still closed. Toilets used heavily by transients are going to get trashed very quickly.

Lets be honest, there's nothing more humbling than walking down Market across from Twitter HQ, and seeing a homeless person whip it out to piss next to that den of newly minted millionaires and affluent tech workers. We can't provide public needs for those in need, but if we do, we need to be careful they don't become unhealthy cesspools either.

There is great complexity in helping homeless people in all their diversity. I was called out as cynical in another thread of social projects, so I will try to be more clear here.

Social projects like this one have just as much risk as a regular startup. Most will fail, just as most startups will. But this is no reason not to start a social project, just like with startups.

I have the impression that people have two reactions when reading stories like these: i) people love the idea and that someone made it happen, and are glad that it exists, regardless if it will actually impact a lot of people or not and ii) people think it will fail, normally for obvious reasons and that the project shouldn't have started at all. It is a waste of people's time, money, trust and will.

Myself, I pretty much act the same way as with any other Show HN for a regular startup. If I love the idea and I am impressed by the execution and potential, I just share that and go on to sign-up or buy the product and share with my friends. If I see flaws, according to my own view, in the idea or execution or vision, I go on and comment, trying to help. If I don't like the idea or the vision, I just ignore.

So I'm commenting here because I liked very much the idea and the vision. But helping homeless is a tricky business. A little bit of counterintuitive, but homelessness is less correlated to previous poverty compared to other social issues. I lack some studies to cite here, this is personal experience working with homeless people and talking to people with more knowledge on the subject than me (in Brazil and Uruguay, but one of things I learned is that homeless people have a lot in common all over the world). Maybe HN may attract more qualified people on the subject than me, but I do have some practical experience with it.

Poverty does not cause homelessness. There is a diversity on homeless people in relation to their social status and wealth. What makes someone homeless is lack of social networks, not money. Social network as the people you know, not the websites. You become isolated, unable to ask or receive help from close family, far relatives, friends, colleagues, acquaintances. The reasons you lost all your human support has much less diversity: alcohol or drug addictions and mental illness are the most common. Also common is just geographical separation, as with migrants. There is a shame in going to the big city and "not making it".

That big, maybe dispensable intro, was to say that you must provide the structure, just as "Lava Mae" did (very well by the way, as being mobile it is a great solution). But also you need incentive (which I honestly don't know how Lava Mae provide). Just as in tech, if you build, you don't know if they will come. There is a lot of reasons a homeless person might not want to get in the bus. They don't trust the people there, they just don't want to have any contact what so ever with another person, they may be afraid of it, they may consider their dirt an important part of their persona, they may be afraid of loosing their stuff while bathing. I see that they have the purpose of being "a safe and welcoming environment". But that may not be enough.

Not paying enough attention to incentive, marketing and distribution in this kind of project is dangerous. To build something and complain that no one comes is just as silly as in the startup world. But in this case you still cause more harm because a lot of people might look at it and come to the conclusion that we should quit helping homeless people, after all "there was that bus to clean them and they didn't want to get clean. Everything was there, it was their fault".

So I want to end this comment with a sugestion. Here in Brazil we have some government restaurants that charge R$ 1.00 (~U$0.40) per meal. Enough that anyone can afford, even the homeless (if I recall correctly, even the R$1.00 fee is optional). The food is good enough, I ate at one several times, and the restaurant of choice of a lot of lower class, employed people. That provides dignity to the place. And it is very clean. It is open for everyone. So when a anyone come to eat there, there is just one discrimination: you must be clean. And the place provides a bathroom for the homeless people that need, to take a bath, be clean and then eat.

The magic is that at once, you provide a good incentive (to eat), with several good explanations of why should the homeless person get clean at all. It is not because people in the street will avoid you, or that you will annoy society. It is because eating is a special circumstance, an important ritual and place. People will be sitting close to you and they have the right to eat without getting dirty and without smelling bad. You will eat on a proper place, with proper tools, and then you must be on proper shape to eat. Among with other assurances such as that their stuff will be safe and untouched when they finish.

This could be a "growth hack" to Lava Mae (IF they didn't think about it yet, which I just don't know). Pair up with some restaurants, soup lines, or whatever food service for the poor they have in SF; ask them to require the people to be clean to eat there and Lava Mae provide the structure.

That idea is brilliant, btw. To have people be clean to get food.

Actually food is cheap enough that it should, in theory, be possible to provide it to every person who needs it without high costs.

They're "mobile" because a fixed facility would become a "homeless magnet", neighbors would object, and real estate interests wouldn't like it. Santa Monica has something called SHWASHLOCK; free showers, washing machines, and lockers for homeless people. It only serves about 125 people, though. SF has about 13,000 homeless. (In comparison, about 75,000 gays.)

SF has become more homeless-hostile as the city has become more prosperous.

I'm not sure whether to laud this or be shocked at the lack of more standard provisions.

Bath houses were a feature of cities for centuries.

San Francisco had bath houses but they, um, weren't very clean and were shut down.

I think San Francisco's former "bath houses" served a different function than that being provided by these showers. They were shut down at the height of the AIDS epidemic.

SF had "normal" bath houses before that.

San Francisco has homeless shelters and a program to get transients into permanent housing. The homeless who need showers are the ones who refuse the program.

I lived in San Francisco for a number of years, so I'm familiar with this issue.

The programs are underfunded and cannot cope with homeless people who are mentally ill or addicted.

The "voluntary homeless" are more likely to be found in the Haight and Golden Gate Park than in the Tenderloin.

I hate to be "that guy" (ok, well sometimes I like it) -- but isn't there a risk of making one locality much more welcoming to the homeless that we end up being the drop-off point for every homeless person in the region?

My point is not that we shouldn't offer help, but that by doing so on a city-by-city basis, with no overall plan or obligation, we allow many localities to freeload off the good will of the few that try to do the right thing.

I really admire these charitable and heroic efforts to help. But I can't help thinking, that the problem of homelessness should be attacked via it's root cause, which is a society does not care for the poor or sick, in a very Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' kind of way.

The obvious solution is to collect more taxes, and to help those in need, be it due to poverty or mental health issues. That would mean paying for housing and providing free healthcare.

So, if you really want to help, consider the idea of a more social state, and be willing to pay higher taxes.

Mobile showers are great, but I might have missed what’s so groundbreaking about it.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Mobile_Shower_Unit__... http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2008210554_homeless28... http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100923/NEWS01/709239891 http://www.henkelna.com/press/2010-16528-henkel-and-tempe-co... http://www.depaulfrance.org/actualites/mobildouche/?lang=en

Of course it's not groundbreaking, but until it becomes commonplace, it's nice to hear about such things happening.

sure is, i am involved in one. just weird seeing people react as it was a new idea.

edit: grammar

"The scheme comes at a time of heightened tension in the city, fuelled by the tech boom which led to charges of gentrification amid exponential rent rises over the past two years."

It is too bad things have to touch some sort of bottom for a reaction to occur.

Treat one another with grace and humanity.

The confidence that this will inspire while looking or interviewing for a job is immense. Taking it one step further, it would be great if they're provided free clothing if they can prove(to prevent abuse) that they need it to go to an interview.

It exists here is a charity specific for women with a location in San Francisco http://www.dressforsuccess.org/affiliate.aspx?sisid=114&page...

Awesome and practical idea!

Did anyone else hear Claire Underwood in that interview? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Underwood

No one got the reference to Psalm 50? (Latin "Lava me") http://www.medievalist.net/psalmstxt/ps50.htm ;-)

Of course, it's also a play on "wash me" Spanish.

Jesus, what a poor city Frisco. The poorest country in the EU - Latvia in its poorest region - Latgale, in the poorest city of Daugavpils (around 75 000 ppl now with many homeless) has 4 (!) public bath houses.

This situation is grave. Like @pstuart mentioned below city bath houses were closed in SanFran, and restrooms on stations were also never reopened. How can a civilized man live in such a city?

That was inspiring!

What do you think of these proposals? Is it too controversial?

#1a - Proposed Ad Photo - Are You Feeding The Homeless? Or, Are you feeding the Addiction? http://tinyurl.com/lajnco5

#1b - Did Jesus say, "Feed the Poor"? Or, did Jesus say, "Feed the Addiction"? http://tinyurl.com/mk8s3vq

#2 - Tulane Ave and Broad St Revitalization Proposal - link: http://tinyurl.com/kv684yc NOTE: Please see the follow up comments in regards to moving the Homeless Shelters, etc.

#3 - Long term plan to "Break the Addiction", Use Bread Crumbs http://tinyurl.com/nrvnxp9

#4 - You can't criminalize being Homeless (How can you get a job if you are criminal?) http://tinyurl.com/mexjapx (same page in #1a above, but direct link to section)

#5 - WHERE ARE THE FAMILIES and FRIENDS of the HOMELESS? If these "homeless" are just one (1) or two (2) paychecks from homelessness, why can't these homeless sleep on the couch of their family members or friend(s) for a few months? http://tinyurl.com/o92f4oc (same page in #1a above, but direct link to section)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com