I have similar thoughts vis a vis Canada. We have a relatively small population which through some grand series of historic events populates one of the largest countries on earth, rich with resources. To me it’s inexcusable that there are homeless and/or hungry in this country.
I also learned several years ago, on the mental health front, that approximately 10% of our homeless are schizophrenics.
10% of homeless in Canada are schizophrenics, wow that’s a significant percentage.
The price of housing is outrageous depending on where you’re located. Arroyo Seco Tiny Homes in Highland Park, California is a village of tiny houses that cost 5.1 million dollars for 117 homes. That’s about $43,000 for 64 square feet of housing designed for two people.
An ounce of prevention…
Are there homes for sale or rent currently there? How far is it from there to gainful employement.
64 square feet? I think/hope you left off a zero there?
Anyway, I see that you have three options to deal with the homeless. The first is to do nothing, and leave the status quo as it is. The second is to exterminate them. And the third is to actually address the problems that contribute to homelessness, which isn’t easy, may not be cheap, and there isn’t a one size fits all solution, as people become and stay homeless for a number of reasons.
Personally, I prefer the latter solution, but those who refuse the latter, and can’t tolerate the former, are by default advocating for the second.
Nope, they are 8 ft x 8 ft. But it’s also not really accurate to describe them as “homes” - they are more like private, lockable bedrooms. No kitchen or bathroom - bathrooms are shared and meals are provided
The Tiny Homes are really amazing. Each one is 64 sq. ft. in size, has two beds, heat, air-conditioning, windows, a small desk and a front door! Onsite, meals, showers, case management, housing navigation, mental health, job training and placement will be provided. We are doing our very best to MAKE HOMELESS HISTORY!
It’s worth noting that since the early 2010s, the rates of the unhoused have diverged pretty dramatically in red versus blue states (defined as states which voted for Trump or Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, respectively), with particular notice being put on California and New York, those two states alone I think account for almost the entirety of the divergence.
That is a fairly concentrated problem in a couple states, with Washington and Oregon also being involved. It might be interesting to explore exactly why that is.
8’X8’ for two people? As in, 4’X8’ per person? Assume a ‘permanent’ bed takes up about 3’X6’ – that leaves 30 square feet for the person’s belongings, space to stand up in, maybe a chair so he can sit down sometimes?
Question: can we legally imprison even a mass murderer into a cell that size as an on-going, lifetime thing?
Yep, a common prison cell size is 6’ x 8’.
Again, from what others have posted and the description, it appears these are really more akin to “private rooms”, they aren’t intended to serve as a complete residence. It would be like giving people a bedroom in a large communal apartment with a number of unrelated people, and there would be common areas for lounging / preparing food / bathroom etc.
According to the articles I’ve seen, it doesn’t appear anyone is forced to live there and it is not meant to be permanent housing. It’s to substitute for the other types of “temporary” shelters until permanent housing is found. The village has 177 units and 224 beds - as far as I can tell , it seems that most units are meant for a single person and the units for two are used for couples, not to house two strangers together, This article mentions people who are not interested in living in this village. It also has some photos.
Sixty-four sq ft with a curfew, shared bathroom and no kitchen is not the same as having your own apartment - but it’s a lot better for many people than sleeping on the street, in your car or a more traditional type of shelter where you may not have 64 sq ft even for two people. ( How many beds fit in a 10x10 rooms? I’m guessing at least 4 if you use two sets of bunk beds. )
In my area, the vast majority of the visible homeless seem to be either seriously mentally ill and/or serious drug addicts. It’s very rare that you see someone who doesn’t fit either of those molds hanging around by the freeway intersections panhandling, or pestering people for money at the public transit stations.
I’m not so sure they want to live that way in homeless encampments, but from what I understand, when their choices are basically to get medicated and behave a certain way(no drugs or panhandling) or do what they want and be homeless, many choose the latter, because their mental illness doesn’t allow them to perceive that there’s anything wrong with themselves, and they don’t want to be compelled to take medication, behave, etc…
I don’t know how you solve that problem- it seems to involve coercion from the authorities if the people aren’t willing.
In places where they permit sleeping in public places, some people at the bottom rungs will choose that over other options they have at that level. They might not choose to be homeless, but they may have choices of where they sleep that night, such as in a cheapo motel, on a friend’s couch, in a car, etc. With those options, sleeping in an encampment may be a good option by comparison. Even if they have a car, a tent will have much more space and be more comfortable. By not permitting encampments, people who would have otherwise chosen those will have to look for another option. A subset of homeless don’t have any other options other than sleeping outside, but some homeless are making the choice to live in an encampment over other places they could stay. So the places which allow sleeping outside will have a greater homeless population since that population includes both people who don’t have other options as well as those who do but choose to sleep in an encampment.
From what I remember (don’t quote me on this one), the Irish learned that – ‘if they weren’t a terrorist when you put them in prison, they were definitely likely to be terrorists when they got out.’
Similarly, I have said on another thread that my strong belief is that there are people for whom mental illness and/or substance abuse are causes of homelessness, but that there are people for whom they are effects.
A very lucky few – unlikely enough to lose stable and reliable housing in the first place – can still ‘hop on the train’ before it gets away (ie, find their way back to their former life).
But it’s just a matter of time – how much time dependent on a nearly infinite number of intrinsic and extrinsic factors – before the insidious toll of homelessness/life on the streets … breaks you.
We should always be working on prevention, which requires no end of things that the US seems uninterested in for reasons well-stated above.
But we need a QRF mindset once somebody joins the ranks of the truly unfortunate. Intervention has to be swift, deliberate, thoughtful, and comprehensive.
And has to happen before the ravages of homelessness take an irreparable toll.
But we have to be there for people ‘after,’ too. We can’t treat them like we tend to treat our veterans: as nearly disposable and having gotten from them what we needed.
For many of these people, I suspect the job will never really be ‘done.’
Which – again – speaks to why prevention is overwhelmingly the better option.
You know, I’m not against that at all, people seem to be happy with van life and such. One of the lowest needs of Maslow’s hierarchy is personal security, and it seems as just having a safe place to sleep and to keep personal possessions would go a long way to alleviating the stresses of homelessness.
But it seems like you should be able to get the price tag down a bit more, and allow single occupancy unless people want to live together.
It would be worth exploring whether the homeless are native to those areas, or if the homeless move to the areas that are more tolerant of them.
I know I’d rather be homeless in California or New York than in Kansas or Oklahoma.
There are also the working homeless. They have jobs, sometimes well paying jobs, but the cost of housing in those areas is so astronomical that even on a 6 figure salary, they still are living in their car.
I have no doubt there are many “working homeless.” I am skeptical that there are more than a few oddities who are making over $100,000 and living in their car.
A sense of belonging/community is good for people, as is providing housing and employment (e.g. a cooperative business). However, making people not take drugs and/or not be schizophrenic is a tricky problem that sounds like it requires a lot of professional and expensive services—this goes beyond providing only housing facilities and security (even those things require a certain amount of resources, as mentioned above. However, it is nothing that “society” cannot afford.)
Depends on the rent. In Japan, the equivalent of $750 per month will allow you to… sleep in a cafe every night of the week. As for the $100000, how much of that is left after taxes, and is it enough to afford the $4000 rent in a big city?
I think the “price tag” includes everything including the staff for the provided services, so it probably can’t go down much , and from what I’ve seen, only “couples” of some sort live together - there are 177 units and 224 beds, so only 47 units can accommodate two people.
And they are not sleeping in the backseat of their Escort, they typically actually have a reasonably nice setup in an SUV or van.
Some go so far as to actually make a home in their vehicle, complete with kitchen and bathroom, which makes the definition of homeless a bit hard to pin down. But, they are still often counted among the homeless, and have a similar problem of often finding themselves unwelcome and have a hard time finding a safe place to spend the night.
My point is only that there is not a one size fits all solution, as there are many reasons for someone to not live in a house or apartment, not all of which have to do with lack of income.
I read that article and I just don’t see were it says that people earning 100K are homeless - unless you are using a different definition of “homeless” than is normally used. It mentions $100K income not being enough to buy a home * and 6 figure earners living paycheck to paycheck , but doesn’t say anything about them living in a car or on the street or a homeless shelter. As far as the article is concerned , they could be renting an apartment or a room.
* although it doesn’t say give any details about where