7 ms·

"We live in a city with 1.5m people living below the poverty line - that means we have 1.5m people at risk of being homeless." Not exactly. First, the poverty

by jzwinck 11y ago

"We live in a city with 1.5m people living below the poverty line - that means we have 1.5m people at risk of being homeless." Not exactly. First, the poverty line is federal and does not move with the ebb and flow of NYC life. Second, a lot of homeless in NYC are that way by choice rather than by direct inability to get a room somewhere. Sometimes this is due to mental issues which are not caused by low income. Third, there are people who make money but spend it all, ending up paying taxes above the poverty line but actually having zero or negative savings. Plenty of people in NYC are in that category.

venomsnake 11y ago
Yeah right ... while some people love to be nomads and not settle permanently, no one chooses to be shelter-less - sleeping outside with improper gear in November rainy night is mightily miserable experience.
buro9 11y ago
> Second, a lot of homeless in NYC are that way by choice rather than by direct inability to get a room somewhere. Sometimes this is due to mental issues which are not caused by low income. I've been homeless, so perhaps you'll forgive me for being biased against thinking like that. I would never class mental illness as a choice, or of poor decisions whilst someone is suffering mental illness as a choice. It sounds to me a lot like victim blaming. That a person may "choose" to be homeless because they have mental illness... isn't that more like a lack of compassion by fellow citizens to help support those who are suffering from mental illness? Would it be different if it were a physical illness? That man is homeless because he chose to be due to having a broken leg. That sounds ridiculous, and frankly that's how your statement sounds to me. I "chose" to be homeless. Sure, my choice. I could've stayed in a violent and sexually abusive environment and living in poverty. But instead it was my "choice" to sleep on the streets to escape it. I didn't even choose hostels - I voluntarily declined a bed to sleep in - because when you've come from a shared sleeping environment in which you were not safe and feared physical abuse nightly, then you may understand my reticence to enter a shared sleeping environment with strangers, some of whom as you pointed out may have mental illness. Perhaps this is all just a mental construct to make you feel better about yourself. If you are able to imagine that these people took responsibility for themselves and this was a free choice, you are able to absolve yourself of any individual part of the responsibility to show compassion and empathy towards fellow humans. If all we've got to offer people as a society, is a "choice" to sleep without shelter, without warmth, without safety... I'm not really seeing how anyone can say that people "choose" this. Edit: Whilst this issue has attention: http://crackandcider.com/ http://crackandcider.com/ I'd urge anyone doing secret santa's, or just feeling flush to go there, and buy things for homeless people. They're good people, taking no profit but covering costs, and just giving this stuff to people who need it.
- cubancigar11 11y ago
  It is misandry.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  I'm moved by your story, but wonder what would you propose as a workable alternative for someone in your position? It seems like the requirement that you not share sleeping space makes your situation a very difficult one to address, no? No-cost private hotel rooms seems financially a non-starter.
  - buro9 11y ago
    I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and cleaning, etc. Training grounds for all the skills you need to survive when you finally get somewhere larger, but also large enough not to give you shelter, security. They had other things, like a central place to go and socialise, to get used to humans again, and counsellors and support people... but the key thing is a very small space that is yours. That would be enough... a shed. It need not be permanent, just enough to lift someone from the very lowest point in their life to a point fractionally above that. In effect I did this too. For shelter from snow over Winter I would trespass onto building sites after they had closed and would sleep in the site office. It was shelter, there was generally a heater and a kettle. I could make a bed, I would leave the place tidy. But most of all, it was safe and I always felt confident I would survive the night (something I wasn't sure of the times I lay shivering violently under bushes in Manchester). Little steps, lots of support, understanding. Just giving someone an apartment isn't the answer, it's about supporting people, to help them re-integrate. A home isn't a magic bullet for people not ready to live in one.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      Informative answer; thank you for that and I wish you the very best in your path to re-integration.

by jzwinck 11y ago

venomsnake 11y ago

Yeah right ... while some people love to be nomads and not settle permanently, no one chooses to be shelter-less - sleeping outside with improper gear in November rainy night is mightily miserable experience.

buro9 11y ago

> Second, a lot of homeless in NYC are that way by choice rather than by direct inability to get a room somewhere. Sometimes this is due to mental issues which are not caused by low income. I've been homeless, so perhaps you'll forgive me for being biased against thinking like that. I would never class mental illness as a choice, or of poor decisions whilst someone is suffering mental illness as a choice. It sounds to me a lot like victim blaming. That a person may "choose" to be homeless because they have mental illness... isn't that more like a lack of compassion by fellow citizens to help support those who are suffering from mental illness? Would it be different if it were a physical illness? That man is homeless because he chose to be due to having a broken leg. That sounds ridiculous, and frankly that's how your statement sounds to me. I "chose" to be homeless. Sure, my choice. I could've stayed in a violent and sexually abusive environment and living in poverty. But instead it was my "choice" to sleep on the streets to escape it. I didn't even choose hostels - I voluntarily declined a bed to sleep in - because when you've come from a shared sleeping environment in which you were not safe and feared physical abuse nightly, then you may understand my reticence to enter a shared sleeping environment with strangers, some of whom as you pointed out may have mental illness. Perhaps this is all just a mental construct to make you feel better about yourself. If you are able to imagine that these people took responsibility for themselves and this was a free choice, you are able to absolve yourself of any individual part of the responsibility to show compassion and empathy towards fellow humans. If all we've got to offer people as a society, is a "choice" to sleep without shelter, without warmth, without safety... I'm not really seeing how anyone can say that people "choose" this. Edit: Whilst this issue has attention: http://crackandcider.com/ http://crackandcider.com/ I'd urge anyone doing secret santa's, or just feeling flush to go there, and buy things for homeless people. They're good people, taking no profit but covering costs, and just giving this stuff to people who need it.

cubancigar11 11y ago
It is misandry.
sokoloff 11y ago
I'm moved by your story, but wonder what would you propose as a workable alternative for someone in your position? It seems like the requirement that you not share sleeping space makes your situation a very difficult one to address, no? No-cost private hotel rooms seems financially a non-starter.
- buro9 11y ago
  I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and cleaning, etc. Training grounds for all the skills you need to survive when you finally get somewhere larger, but also large enough not to give you shelter, security. They had other things, like a central place to go and socialise, to get used to humans again, and counsellors and support people... but the key thing is a very small space that is yours. That would be enough... a shed. It need not be permanent, just enough to lift someone from the very lowest point in their life to a point fractionally above that. In effect I did this too. For shelter from snow over Winter I would trespass onto building sites after they had closed and would sleep in the site office. It was shelter, there was generally a heater and a kettle. I could make a bed, I would leave the place tidy. But most of all, it was safe and I always felt confident I would survive the night (something I wasn't sure of the times I lay shivering violently under bushes in Manchester). Little steps, lots of support, understanding. Just giving someone an apartment isn't the answer, it's about supporting people, to help them re-integrate. A home isn't a magic bullet for people not ready to live in one.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    Informative answer; thank you for that and I wish you the very best in your path to re-integration.