5 ms·

> In December, Cheatham, her children and their father qualified for a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house in Mountain View. > The couple isn’t completely reconc

> In December, Cheatham, her children and their father qualified for a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house in Mountain View. > The couple isn’t completely reconciled, but they came together to provide a roof — one that’s not welded to a chassis — over their children’s heads. > “We’re working things out,” said Cheatham, 37. “The most important thing is to have a stable place for our kids.” It's amazing to me to see / hear of parents, who even after disagreeing badly enough to divorce, are able to come together to care for their children. It's hard for me to even fathom how much work and humility that would take. That they were willing to talk to each other at all is, in its own right, remarkable. I have been fortunate enough to have always lived in a secure home, and I've never needed to sleep in a car out of necessity- the only times I've gone camping are as a Boy Scout (okay, Scouts BSA member), when a warm shower was only a day or two away. As for the policies: Cars are, besides being a little awkward to sleep in, a lot more secure than a tent is (and more fireproof, to boot). With the understanding that all it takes is one mistake for a poor family to become an even poorer, homeless family, I feel like a lot of these "parking overnight, or being homeless = vagrance = illegal = fines" laws can be a little out of touch- they're generally written by college-educated politicians, many of whom have never had to do anything of the like, and who don't understand that a $50 fine when you can't even pay rent is really bad. Why does it seem to be that we, at least in America, punish the poor for being poor, instead of, or even at the same time that we try to help them up?

joe_the_user 8y ago
Why does it seem to be that we, at least in America, punish the poor for being poor, instead of, or even at the same time that we try to help them up? You could just say "authorities punish the poor for being poor while pretending to help them up". We have reached the point where courts demands that when police move homeless people on that these police offer them a place in shelters. So, you wind-up with a situation where phantom shelter-beds are created. The (mostly) fiction of attempting to help people has to be maintained while the primary intention to remove them as annoyance, knowing they'll reappear elsewhere. And yeah, allow tiny house camps on private land and you'll reduce the incredible pressure towards higher rents (or build public high rises like the old days or whatever). But then a whole lot of land value is threatened and so the concerned, naive homeowner becomes the threatened homeowner.
jethro_tell 8y ago
>Why does it seem to be that we, at least in America, punish the poor for being poor, instead of, or even at the same time that we try to help them up? I think that's the natural consequence of having spent years pushing the idea that being poor is a personal choice or a lack of character. Once you make the connection that it's directly linked to a lack of character, you can be punitive instead of providing a safety net, and punitive is much cheaper for those of us with high moral character.
- klank 8y ago
  > and punitive is much cheaper for those of us with high moral character. I didn't understand this assertion. Could you expand on it a bit?
  - binarysolo 8y ago
    The commenter is just being sarcastic. It's easier to penalize others and self-justify than to care and help others.
    - some1else 8y ago
      https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm :-)
      - imtringued 8y ago
        I propose a technological solution to this problem: HN needs a sarcasm checkbox on each comment.
        jessaustin 8y ago
        Yes that will really help those of us who can't read English.
  - ctack 8y ago
    You could read it as “It’s cheaper for the not poor”. Parent comment mentions that in their country, being poor has come be seen as a choice and the poor as lacking in character. So being not poor means you have high moral character.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Why does it seem to be that we, at least in America, punish the poor for being poor, instead of, or even at the same time that we try to help them up? You could just say "authorities punish the poor for being poor while pretending to help them up". We have reached the point where courts demands that when police move homeless people on that these police offer them a place in shelters. So, you wind-up with a situation where phantom shelter-beds are created. The (mostly) fiction of attempting to help people has to be maintained while the primary intention to remove them as annoyance, knowing they'll reappear elsewhere. And yeah, allow tiny house camps on private land and you'll reduce the incredible pressure towards higher rents (or build public high rises like the old days or whatever). But then a whole lot of land value is threatened and so the concerned, naive homeowner becomes the threatened homeowner.

jethro_tell 8y ago

>Why does it seem to be that we, at least in America, punish the poor for being poor, instead of, or even at the same time that we try to help them up? I think that's the natural consequence of having spent years pushing the idea that being poor is a personal choice or a lack of character. Once you make the connection that it's directly linked to a lack of character, you can be punitive instead of providing a safety net, and punitive is much cheaper for those of us with high moral character.

klank 8y ago
> and punitive is much cheaper for those of us with high moral character. I didn't understand this assertion. Could you expand on it a bit?
- binarysolo 8y ago
  The commenter is just being sarcastic. It's easier to penalize others and self-justify than to care and help others.
  - some1else 8y ago
    https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm :-)
    - imtringued 8y ago
      I propose a technological solution to this problem: HN needs a sarcasm checkbox on each comment.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Yes that will really help those of us who can't read English.
- ctack 8y ago
  You could read it as “It’s cheaper for the not poor”. Parent comment mentions that in their country, being poor has come be seen as a choice and the poor as lacking in character. So being not poor means you have high moral character.