10 ms·

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 hel

by 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.
- buro9 11y ago
  Oh, I'm done. I've been off the streets for years, and now have work I love, skills I enjoy, an MSc, and stable accommodation. But that never lessens the rawness of the memory. Those memories involve traumas, and those don't fade. One lives with ones scars.
planfaster 11y ago
The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfare experiment. You say you have been homeless. I'd like to ask you what you think of my idea: instead of giving the homeless shelter in the city, and having them drain resources from people who produce wealth, meanwhile not producing anything, why not give them a cheap house in a small farmland with some chicken or turkey, rabbits, a vegetable garden, etc? That way we solve many problems. 1. the poor are now productive, they produce their own food instead and don't need to drain other people's resources to have food and shelter; 2. they are far from the city, which won't encourage laziness by sending people a message that they can't try and game the system by getting help while still living in the city as a non-producer; 3. it will teach these poor people good work ethics and how work is necessary for everyone to survive, and that they can't just rely on the fact that other people work. I'd say that besides the farm life, they should have good public libraries nearby in case they want to learn something in order to be able to later join the city life again, this time as a productive member. Am I being inhumane for trying to make producers out of every human being, and for thinking even the disabled can help pick fruit from bushes or wash them or otherwise contribute in a communal farm setting? Would you be for a program to send the poor and the homeless to farms and basically instate a rule where you can't live in a place you can't afford?
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting. And 'transporting' folks is what they did to criminals in Britain in the bad old days (usually to Australia). The point of a city isn't anything like what is suggested. Its a place where a lot of people gathered to live. Some got squeezed out as prices and the job situation changed rapidly. Blaming them is pointless. I don't think this plan will get much traction.
  - bmelton 11y ago

by buro9 11y ago

sokoloff 11y ago

Informative answer; thank you for that and I wish you the very best in your path to re-integration.

buro9 11y ago
Oh, I'm done. I've been off the streets for years, and now have work I love, skills I enjoy, an MSc, and stable accommodation. But that never lessens the rawness of the memory. Those memories involve traumas, and those don't fade. One lives with ones scars.

planfaster 11y ago

The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfare experiment. You say you have been homeless. I'd like to ask you what you think of my idea: instead of giving the homeless shelter in the city, and having them drain resources from people who produce wealth, meanwhile not producing anything, why not give them a cheap house in a small farmland with some chicken or turkey, rabbits, a vegetable garden, etc? That way we solve many problems. 1. the poor are now productive, they produce their own food instead and don't need to drain other people's resources to have food and shelter; 2. they are far from the city, which won't encourage laziness by sending people a message that they can't try and game the system by getting help while still living in the city as a non-producer; 3. it will teach these poor people good work ethics and how work is necessary for everyone to survive, and that they can't just rely on the fact that other people work. I'd say that besides the farm life, they should have good public libraries nearby in case they want to learn something in order to be able to later join the city life again, this time as a productive member. Am I being inhumane for trying to make producers out of every human being, and for thinking even the disabled can help pick fruit from bushes or wash them or otherwise contribute in a communal farm setting? Would you be for a program to send the poor and the homeless to farms and basically instate a rule where you can't live in a place you can't afford?

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting. And 'transporting' folks is what they did to criminals in Britain in the bad old days (usually to Australia). The point of a city isn't anything like what is suggested. Its a place where a lot of people gathered to live. Some got squeezed out as prices and the job situation changed rapidly. Blaming them is pointless. I don't think this plan will get much traction.
- bmelton 11y ago