4 ms·

A homeless couple moved into a $4M home. Then came the calls to police

20 points by jawns 8y ago

mindcrime 8y ago
Cue up the posts from people criticizing McGrath for doing this. I expect several variations on "He's doing this for some ulterior motive", "Nice, but why isn't he doing more", "The neighbors who are calling the cops are totally justified in doing so", blah, blah, blah. Personally I think he's doing a wonderful thing, and hope his example can act as inspiration for others... and that this story encourages more people to think about the problem of homelessness, and to realize that homeless people are people first and foremost.
- rando444 8y ago
  >Cue up the posts from people criticizing McGrath for doing this. Given the heartwarming nature of this story, and the regular good nature of the participants on this website, perhaps you might want to consider whether you might be projecting guilt. Perhaps you feel bad that you're not doing more yourself? Whether or not that's the case, I think you're taking an unnecessarily negative view of the userbase here.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    I think you're taking an unnecessarily negative view of the userbase here. Five years ago I would have agreed with you. But have you really not noticed the precipitous shift towards a generally negative attitude around here? It's gotten so bad I almost want to walk away from HN in general. But I have convinced myself that it's a reflection of such a shift in sentiment of society at large, and as much as it sucks, leaving HN wouldn't actually leave me any better off in that case. :-( Of course now I feel guilty, for feeding the negativity by being negative about the negativity. I guess the old War Games quote still holds "The only way to win, is not to play." :-)
- wahern 8y ago
  > The neighbors who are calling the cops are totally justified in doing so I mean... if someone was lighting a joint regularly near my home I'd call the cops too. Same for cigarettes, though the smell doesn't carry that far. We have asked people smoking cigarettes and lingering out front to move on. We have two little kids. I grew up poor. We were homeless at times. The culture is different. You don't fit in, and there's a real culture clash. I go back to the deep south and walk into a gas station and watch the little kids load up on $20 worth of junk food for dinner while the mom chain smokes outside and I feel more comfortable and at ease than I do anywhere else. These are people I can relate with. Still, I don't want my children to grow up in that kind of environment or to think such habits are normal and okay.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    or to think such habits are normal and okay. You made a pretty big jump from a lot of other stuff, to a lady sitting outside smoking a cigarette. But in either case, isn't their some onus on parents to educate their children that "there are some people that engage in behaviors that we don't approve of. Those people have a right to do that, but we don't want you to grow up doing the same things because ... $A, $B, and $C."? I mean, you really don't have any standing to think that you can bend the entire world to conform to your particular beliefs and values.
    - wahern 8y ago
      You can't teach that sort of behavior. These habits and social norms are internalized at a young age, or through years of habituation. My children sit down for dinner every night like it's the most normal thing in the world. I'm a middle-aged man for whom sitting down at the dinner table is exceptionally stressful because growing up for as long as I could remember you ate whatever was available in the house (if anything), whenever you wanted, and wherever you wanted. I feel like a caged animal sitting down at the table, and that will never change. But I don't deny that doing so is much healthier in terms of physical and social development for my children. Conversely, my wife grew up in a household where sitting down with family was natural, so not sitting down with family for dinner is uncomfortable and unnatural for her. So I hide my struggle from my kids because even though they're good at the table now they're still impressionable young kids who are much more likely than an adult to gravitate to such bad behavior if given the opportunity or excuse. I know that because I see my oldest kid mimicking and being shaped by the behaviors of his classmates and kids; it was clear and obvious starting from when he was barely 2 years old. (I disagree strongly that television makes such strong impressions. People underestimate how well children are capable of differentiating fiction from real life, but it's dangerous to discount the normalizing effect of exposure to real life behaviors, no matter how an adult tries to frame the context.) That's why I can deeply sympathize with the homeless couple in the story. They feel alienated and there's really nothing that can be done about that. I still feel alienated in middle-class culture. It's exhausting. Are they staring at my teeth? Am I thin enough? Did I shake hands correctly or keep eye contact long enough, but not too long? Should I have acted surprised about the cost of this or the cheapness of that? Am I dressed right? And given how desperately poor the couple was and remains and the fact that they're poor blacks living in a rich white neighborhood (making it harder to fake it, or to be stereotyped even when they're fitting in in every other way) the feeling must be magnitudes worse. At the same time people, including rich people, shouldn't be shamed for demanding certain normative behaviors. We shouldn't fetishize poverty and the culture of poverty. We should demand sympathy, understand that bad choices aren't always "choices", and refrain from using stereotypes (even truthful stereotypes) to imprison individuals. But none of that implies we can't pass judgement on behaviors, even if it makes people feel uncomfortable. Shame is an evolutionary mechanism for coaxing us to adopt normative behaviors. It's painful, but it is what it is. We all want to live in a pain-free world--it's what every animal wants. It's not how the world works or even should work, however. We just need to be honest about it, not vindictive, angry, self-righteous, or unsympathetic. And recognize that some things can only be remediated inter-generationally. Regularly smoking a joint on the sidewalk? Hell no! This isn't the ghetto or a trailer park. And I'm also prepared to defend people who won't even tolerate smoking, even though I deeply sympathize with smokers who feel put upon. You want to light up? Go ahead! But don't feel so entitled that people aren't even allowed to judge you for it, or pretend to be self-righteous about it on others' behalf, even if it's ostensibly used medicinally. I mean, most smoking is medicinal--it's one of the most common drugs used to manage depression and anxiety, which is one reason why it's much more common among the poor and working classes worldwide. But if you want to defend the poor and working class you don't defend smoking, you promote wealth equality. On the other hand, you have to remain sympathetic and give people space to live as they are. I think the flavored tobacco ban in SF is outright racist, but that doesn't mean I don't accept that smoking menthols is a particularly bad behavior that's also almost entirely confined to the black community and that society and even government should remain free to reign it in somehow. These are messy problems without tidy solutions.
chatmasta 8y ago
What a great story. The only thing that makes it a bit sad is how unscalable it is. It's great to help two people, but it must be frustrating knowing there are so many others you cannot help. Imagine if everyone in SF with a guest bedroom did this.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  Scale at the lower end is far more important and impactful. A guy decides he wants to help some people and he does. He uses resources he has available to do so. He's involved. Much more honest than someone deciding they want to help people, and then turns around and lobbies the government to do it.
- wahern 8y ago
  > Imagine if everyone in SF with a guest bedroom did this. And if they cause trouble? Good luck getting rid of them, especially in SF. In many localities, including SF, they'd be tenants with tenants rights, such as just cause eviction and possibly even rent control. I'm usually pro-rent control but it doesn't work well for small numbers of units, and can easily become a nightmare for single family homes, especially if they're in the house and not an in-law. What people can do is sign-up to accept Section 8 vouchers. Federal law will then immunize you from some of the local tenants' rights regulations, including rent control. Section 8 vouchers will often be for less than market rate, but it'll keep pace with inflation much better than the index used for SF rent control. Not sure if section 8 will pay for guest bedrooms, but there are federal and local programs to subsidize construction of in-law units. Most SF houses built in the early 20th century were built with unfinished first floors--for shops, work spaces, living spaces, etc. These weren't originally garages, though most ended up being used as garages after the car boom. Most houses can easily fit a small single unit in the garage without having to give up the garage space entirely. It's already quite common (not surprising given they were literally constructed with this in mind).

20 points by jawns 8y ago

Cue up the posts from people criticizing McGrath for doing this. I expect several variations on "He's doing this for some ulterior motive", "Nice, but why isn't he doing more", "The neighbors who are calling the cops are totally justified in doing so", blah, blah, blah. Personally I think he's doing a wonderful thing, and hope his example can act as inspiration for others... and that this story encourages more people to think about the problem of homelessness, and to realize that homeless people are people first and foremost.

rando444 8y ago
>Cue up the posts from people criticizing McGrath for doing this. Given the heartwarming nature of this story, and the regular good nature of the participants on this website, perhaps you might want to consider whether you might be projecting guilt. Perhaps you feel bad that you're not doing more yourself? Whether or not that's the case, I think you're taking an unnecessarily negative view of the userbase here.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  I think you're taking an unnecessarily negative view of the userbase here. Five years ago I would have agreed with you. But have you really not noticed the precipitous shift towards a generally negative attitude around here? It's gotten so bad I almost want to walk away from HN in general. But I have convinced myself that it's a reflection of such a shift in sentiment of society at large, and as much as it sucks, leaving HN wouldn't actually leave me any better off in that case. :-( Of course now I feel guilty, for feeding the negativity by being negative about the negativity. I guess the old War Games quote still holds "The only way to win, is not to play." :-)
wahern 8y ago
> The neighbors who are calling the cops are totally justified in doing so I mean... if someone was lighting a joint regularly near my home I'd call the cops too. Same for cigarettes, though the smell doesn't carry that far. We have asked people smoking cigarettes and lingering out front to move on. We have two little kids. I grew up poor. We were homeless at times. The culture is different. You don't fit in, and there's a real culture clash. I go back to the deep south and walk into a gas station and watch the little kids load up on $20 worth of junk food for dinner while the mom chain smokes outside and I feel more comfortable and at ease than I do anywhere else. These are people I can relate with. Still, I don't want my children to grow up in that kind of environment or to think such habits are normal and okay.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  or to think such habits are normal and okay. You made a pretty big jump from a lot of other stuff, to a lady sitting outside smoking a cigarette. But in either case, isn't their some onus on parents to educate their children that "there are some people that engage in behaviors that we don't approve of. Those people have a right to do that, but we don't want you to grow up doing the same things because ... $A, $B, and $C."? I mean, you really don't have any standing to think that you can bend the entire world to conform to your particular beliefs and values.
  - wahern 8y ago
    You can't teach that sort of behavior. These habits and social norms are internalized at a young age, or through years of habituation. My children sit down for dinner every night like it's the most normal thing in the world. I'm a middle-aged man for whom sitting down at the dinner table is exceptionally stressful because growing up for as long as I could remember you ate whatever was available in the house (if anything), whenever you wanted, and wherever you wanted. I feel like a caged animal sitting down at the table, and that will never change. But I don't deny that doing so is much healthier in terms of physical and social development for my children. Conversely, my wife grew up in a household where sitting down with family was natural, so not sitting down with family for dinner is uncomfortable and unnatural for her. So I hide my struggle from my kids because even though they're good at the table now they're still impressionable young kids who are much more likely than an adult to gravitate to such bad behavior if given the opportunity or excuse. I know that because I see my oldest kid mimicking and being shaped by the behaviors of his classmates and kids; it was clear and obvious starting from when he was barely 2 years old. (I disagree strongly that television makes such strong impressions. People underestimate how well children are capable of differentiating fiction from real life, but it's dangerous to discount the normalizing effect of exposure to real life behaviors, no matter how an adult tries to frame the context.) That's why I can deeply sympathize with the homeless couple in the story. They feel alienated and there's really nothing that can be done about that. I still feel alienated in middle-class culture. It's exhausting. Are they staring at my teeth? Am I thin enough? Did I shake hands correctly or keep eye contact long enough, but not too long? Should I have acted surprised about the cost of this or the cheapness of that? Am I dressed right? And given how desperately poor the couple was and remains and the fact that they're poor blacks living in a rich white neighborhood (making it harder to fake it, or to be stereotyped even when they're fitting in in every other way) the feeling must be magnitudes worse. At the same time people, including rich people, shouldn't be shamed for demanding certain normative behaviors. We shouldn't fetishize poverty and the culture of poverty. We should demand sympathy, understand that bad choices aren't always "choices", and refrain from using stereotypes (even truthful stereotypes) to imprison individuals. But none of that implies we can't pass judgement on behaviors, even if it makes people feel uncomfortable. Shame is an evolutionary mechanism for coaxing us to adopt normative behaviors. It's painful, but it is what it is. We all want to live in a pain-free world--it's what every animal wants. It's not how the world works or even should work, however. We just need to be honest about it, not vindictive, angry, self-righteous, or unsympathetic. And recognize that some things can only be remediated inter-generationally. Regularly smoking a joint on the sidewalk? Hell no! This isn't the ghetto or a trailer park. And I'm also prepared to defend people who won't even tolerate smoking, even though I deeply sympathize with smokers who feel put upon. You want to light up? Go ahead! But don't feel so entitled that people aren't even allowed to judge you for it, or pretend to be self-righteous about it on others' behalf, even if it's ostensibly used medicinally. I mean, most smoking is medicinal--it's one of the most common drugs used to manage depression and anxiety, which is one reason why it's much more common among the poor and working classes worldwide. But if you want to defend the poor and working class you don't defend smoking, you promote wealth equality. On the other hand, you have to remain sympathetic and give people space to live as they are. I think the flavored tobacco ban in SF is outright racist, but that doesn't mean I don't accept that smoking menthols is a particularly bad behavior that's also almost entirely confined to the black community and that society and even government should remain free to reign it in somehow. These are messy problems without tidy solutions.

chatmasta 8y ago

What a great story. The only thing that makes it a bit sad is how unscalable it is. It's great to help two people, but it must be frustrating knowing there are so many others you cannot help. Imagine if everyone in SF with a guest bedroom did this.

tomohawk 8y ago
Scale at the lower end is far more important and impactful. A guy decides he wants to help some people and he does. He uses resources he has available to do so. He's involved. Much more honest than someone deciding they want to help people, and then turns around and lobbies the government to do it.
wahern 8y ago
> Imagine if everyone in SF with a guest bedroom did this. And if they cause trouble? Good luck getting rid of them, especially in SF. In many localities, including SF, they'd be tenants with tenants rights, such as just cause eviction and possibly even rent control. I'm usually pro-rent control but it doesn't work well for small numbers of units, and can easily become a nightmare for single family homes, especially if they're in the house and not an in-law. What people can do is sign-up to accept Section 8 vouchers. Federal law will then immunize you from some of the local tenants' rights regulations, including rent control. Section 8 vouchers will often be for less than market rate, but it'll keep pace with inflation much better than the index used for SF rent control. Not sure if section 8 will pay for guest bedrooms, but there are federal and local programs to subsidize construction of in-law units. Most SF houses built in the early 20th century were built with unfinished first floors--for shops, work spaces, living spaces, etc. These weren't originally garages, though most ended up being used as garages after the car boom. Most houses can easily fit a small single unit in the garage without having to give up the garage space entirely. It's already quite common (not surprising given they were literally constructed with this in mind).