5 ms·

> In some cities sleeping in your car is illegal even if in a valid parking spot minding your own business. It should be illegal. Parking spaces are by and lar

> In some cities sleeping in your car is illegal even if in a valid parking spot minding your own business. It should be illegal. Parking spaces are by and large meant to primarily serve the needs of legal, taxpaying residents. When they get taken over for use as housing, it diminishes the ability for others to travel and visit friends/family/businesses. And street parking is taken away from those who live locally who may need to park overnight. All this is still leaving aside the fact that it is super creepy to have someone living out of an RV on your block, watching everyone's arrival/departures, casing their joints. Especially because a number of these RV dwellers are permanently-nomadic drug-addicts who engage in property crime to fuel their habits. No thanks.

city41 7y ago
Nowadays it's becoming more common to become homeless despite having a job, due to stagnant wages combined with no affordable housing. There are many documentaries on YouTube covering this phenomenon, such as this one from CBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0HcIJpWMDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0HcIJpWMDk, and this one from DW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHDkALRz5Rk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHDkALRz5Rk
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  Would you accept a compromise where affordable housing is subsidized if the person is a long-term tax-paying/law-abiding resident of that area (5+ years) but not otherwise? I think there has to be a disincentive for people to move to expensive and desirable locations like SF and expect to be able to make ends meet. If they're a newcomer to an area, they should know the costs and what it takes and bear the responsibility instead of imposing themselves upon existing residents IMO.
  - city41 7y ago
    What you describe is essentially rent control. From what I understand (and I am far from an expert), most of these people have lived in SF/LA for a long time, surviving due to rent control. But it's greatly in the landlord's interest to get them to move out, and eventually it happens, and then they are stuck.
    - fiter 7y ago
      Based on your summary, the comment you're replying to would be a better solution as there wouldn't be a perverse incentive. Do you think a replacement of rent control with such a policy could happen?
- quotemstr 7y ago
  And if laws against vagrancy were better-enforced, businesses wouldn't find it possible to employ people for poverty wages. They'd have to raise wages to the point that people can afford housing. This idea that we need to allow people to camp all over public space because the employment market is malfunctioning in some way is indicative of a "caring" mindset that's making it impossible to actually solve the real, underlying problems of resource misallocation. Our inability to address the homeless problem is a direct result of "caring" and "nurturing" eclipsing all other values. We've become incapable of enacting any policy that someone might call "harsh", even if that policy would be better for everyone in the long term. Sometimes the right approach really is tough love.
  - city41 7y ago
    I'm not trying to suggest a solution. I think this is an incredibly complex problem and not something I have expertise in. I'm merely pointing out there is some recent evidence to suggest the make up of homeless people may be shifting.
  - dtech 7y ago
    It sounds very unlikely that the reason for stagnant and too low wages is inadequate prosecution of the most vulnerable people in society.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      > It sounds very unlikely that the reason for stagnant and too low wages is inadequate prosecution of the most vulnerable people in society. That's a pretty loaded statement presented without evidence. Vagrants are aren't "the most vulnerable people in society'. They're criminals. If we punish them like criminals, they'll stop their criminal behavior or spent time in prison where they can't cause problems for everyone else.
      - DrJosiah 7y ago
        > Vagrants are aren't "the most vulnerable people in society'. They're criminals. That's a pretty loaded statement presented without evidence.
daxorid 7y ago
Especially because a number of these RV dwellers are permanently-nomadic drug-addicts who engage in property crime to fuel their habits. Property crime is already a crime, hence the term. Assuming your stereotype is accurate, the police will arrest them for their actual crimes soon enough. Until then, the pre-crime of living in an RV isn't sufficient cause.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  > Assuming your stereotype is accurate, the police will arrest them for their actual crimes soon enough. No this does not happen. Property crime ends up being the bottom priority in many cities because of limited staffing/resources/competing priorities. > Until then, the pre-crime of living in an RV isn't sufficient cause. Sure it is. Should a city allow everyone to do whatever they want? If not, why is it out of scope for them to create rules that minimize the likelihood of crimes in the first place? You are asking tax-paying law-abiding residents to rely on a low-probability outcome when there are better ways to avoid being in that position in the first place. The city government exists to support its tax-paying, law-abiding residents. Otherwise why would those residents live there and pay taxes?
- Keverw 7y ago
  Yeah. There's some professionals that do this lifestyle. There's some guy who's a web developer from Tennessee who works remotely and his wife home schools the kids... But trying to balance both work and play sounds like a challenge since not a daily schedule. Also there's some accountant who does this lifestyle too. Very jealous of the lifestyle. I know I rather be somewhere warm right now like Orlando or Texas haha. They go to Disney World ever year too. Seems like some people RV by choice, and some people are forced into it. Like in some expensive places some people might take their last paycheck and buy a RV that barely runs so they still have some sort of shelter, still working locally, etc. I guess it's stereotyped for being homeless, or being retired while there are normal families who decided on this lifestyle. Some people even live on boats too. Some do it to try to save money, while some end up spending more than living in a house or apartment. Then the experience part, more of a adventure than the same boring same over and over. I think if I did it, I'd probably stay a week or two in a area as I think moving every day would be stressful but a lot of neat stuff to see. Some people try and see every state in their first year... but if doing this full time can always come back to a place. But I guess planning and deciding on things can be hard since so much to see and do in this country. But I'd probably stick to campgrounds, rv parks, approved spots for boondocking... Sleeping on random streets just seemed odd to me, and I'd want the peace of mind of not being woken up by someone in the middle of the night. Even some of the national forests seem to not be friendly towards people camping anymore. Coconino national forest I've heard complaints of, and as someone who studied a bit about civil rights I seen one story which I suspect the forest ranger totally broke the law, and not sure what the PC was... Someone had a truck camper, not the prettiest thing but he said the ranger was banging on his door and demanding all his info questioning him even though it was a legal spot on the map, sounds like the ranger was super rude and aggressive even though no law was broken he just wanted to know who was in "his forest" before leaving them alone. but apparently that forest is full of homeless people and not just people on vacation too. Then some forests are understaffed, was reading reviews for one forest not too far from here and someone got their car broken in at a trailhead and no one even came to take a report, not sure what they did in that case since you need a report for insurance company. Then the forest fires out west has been a big drain on the budget too. Some people want to privatize the national forests and parks. I'm kinda conflicted on that idea though. I feel like private companies would manage things better with more services, better hospitality, better made websites with information but probably be more expensive too. Then commercializing things take a bit away from nature, relaxing and disconnecting... I guess one of the ideas is to add WiFi, food trucks and same day Amazon package deliveries to the national parks as one of the proposed plans by the new administration to modernize the parks, which does seem convenience but I know people are against it too. Can see both the pros and cons of that idea. I do feel the focus is more on the national parks though, seems like the national forests are being abandoned and some even want them shutdown or sold off completely which is pretty sad since some are being neglected. I guess the National Parks get higher priority when it comes to funding, probably since more popular too compared to the National Forests.

city41 7y ago

Nowadays it's becoming more common to become homeless despite having a job, due to stagnant wages combined with no affordable housing. There are many documentaries on YouTube covering this phenomenon, such as this one from CBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0HcIJpWMDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0HcIJpWMDk, and this one from DW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHDkALRz5Rk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHDkALRz5Rk

throwawaysea 7y ago
Would you accept a compromise where affordable housing is subsidized if the person is a long-term tax-paying/law-abiding resident of that area (5+ years) but not otherwise? I think there has to be a disincentive for people to move to expensive and desirable locations like SF and expect to be able to make ends meet. If they're a newcomer to an area, they should know the costs and what it takes and bear the responsibility instead of imposing themselves upon existing residents IMO.
- city41 7y ago
  What you describe is essentially rent control. From what I understand (and I am far from an expert), most of these people have lived in SF/LA for a long time, surviving due to rent control. But it's greatly in the landlord's interest to get them to move out, and eventually it happens, and then they are stuck.
  - fiter 7y ago
    Based on your summary, the comment you're replying to would be a better solution as there wouldn't be a perverse incentive. Do you think a replacement of rent control with such a policy could happen?
quotemstr 7y ago
And if laws against vagrancy were better-enforced, businesses wouldn't find it possible to employ people for poverty wages. They'd have to raise wages to the point that people can afford housing. This idea that we need to allow people to camp all over public space because the employment market is malfunctioning in some way is indicative of a "caring" mindset that's making it impossible to actually solve the real, underlying problems of resource misallocation. Our inability to address the homeless problem is a direct result of "caring" and "nurturing" eclipsing all other values. We've become incapable of enacting any policy that someone might call "harsh", even if that policy would be better for everyone in the long term. Sometimes the right approach really is tough love.
- city41 7y ago
  I'm not trying to suggest a solution. I think this is an incredibly complex problem and not something I have expertise in. I'm merely pointing out there is some recent evidence to suggest the make up of homeless people may be shifting.
- dtech 7y ago
  It sounds very unlikely that the reason for stagnant and too low wages is inadequate prosecution of the most vulnerable people in society.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    > It sounds very unlikely that the reason for stagnant and too low wages is inadequate prosecution of the most vulnerable people in society. That's a pretty loaded statement presented without evidence. Vagrants are aren't "the most vulnerable people in society'. They're criminals. If we punish them like criminals, they'll stop their criminal behavior or spent time in prison where they can't cause problems for everyone else.
    - DrJosiah 7y ago
      > Vagrants are aren't "the most vulnerable people in society'. They're criminals. That's a pretty loaded statement presented without evidence.

daxorid 7y ago

Especially because a number of these RV dwellers are permanently-nomadic drug-addicts who engage in property crime to fuel their habits. Property crime is already a crime, hence the term. Assuming your stereotype is accurate, the police will arrest them for their actual crimes soon enough. Until then, the pre-crime of living in an RV isn't sufficient cause.

throwawaysea 7y ago
> Assuming your stereotype is accurate, the police will arrest them for their actual crimes soon enough. No this does not happen. Property crime ends up being the bottom priority in many cities because of limited staffing/resources/competing priorities. > Until then, the pre-crime of living in an RV isn't sufficient cause. Sure it is. Should a city allow everyone to do whatever they want? If not, why is it out of scope for them to create rules that minimize the likelihood of crimes in the first place? You are asking tax-paying law-abiding residents to rely on a low-probability outcome when there are better ways to avoid being in that position in the first place. The city government exists to support its tax-paying, law-abiding residents. Otherwise why would those residents live there and pay taxes?
Keverw 7y ago
Yeah. There's some professionals that do this lifestyle. There's some guy who's a web developer from Tennessee who works remotely and his wife home schools the kids... But trying to balance both work and play sounds like a challenge since not a daily schedule. Also there's some accountant who does this lifestyle too. Very jealous of the lifestyle. I know I rather be somewhere warm right now like Orlando or Texas haha. They go to Disney World ever year too. Seems like some people RV by choice, and some people are forced into it. Like in some expensive places some people might take their last paycheck and buy a RV that barely runs so they still have some sort of shelter, still working locally, etc. I guess it's stereotyped for being homeless, or being retired while there are normal families who decided on this lifestyle. Some people even live on boats too. Some do it to try to save money, while some end up spending more than living in a house or apartment. Then the experience part, more of a adventure than the same boring same over and over. I think if I did it, I'd probably stay a week or two in a area as I think moving every day would be stressful but a lot of neat stuff to see. Some people try and see every state in their first year... but if doing this full time can always come back to a place. But I guess planning and deciding on things can be hard since so much to see and do in this country. But I'd probably stick to campgrounds, rv parks, approved spots for boondocking... Sleeping on random streets just seemed odd to me, and I'd want the peace of mind of not being woken up by someone in the middle of the night. Even some of the national forests seem to not be friendly towards people camping anymore. Coconino national forest I've heard complaints of, and as someone who studied a bit about civil rights I seen one story which I suspect the forest ranger totally broke the law, and not sure what the PC was... Someone had a truck camper, not the prettiest thing but he said the ranger was banging on his door and demanding all his info questioning him even though it was a legal spot on the map, sounds like the ranger was super rude and aggressive even though no law was broken he just wanted to know who was in "his forest" before leaving them alone. but apparently that forest is full of homeless people and not just people on vacation too. Then some forests are understaffed, was reading reviews for one forest not too far from here and someone got their car broken in at a trailhead and no one even came to take a report, not sure what they did in that case since you need a report for insurance company. Then the forest fires out west has been a big drain on the budget too. Some people want to privatize the national forests and parks. I'm kinda conflicted on that idea though. I feel like private companies would manage things better with more services, better hospitality, better made websites with information but probably be more expensive too. Then commercializing things take a bit away from nature, relaxing and disconnecting... I guess one of the ideas is to add WiFi, food trucks and same day Amazon package deliveries to the national parks as one of the proposed plans by the new administration to modernize the parks, which does seem convenience but I know people are against it too. Can see both the pros and cons of that idea. I do feel the focus is more on the national parks though, seems like the national forests are being abandoned and some even want them shutdown or sold off completely which is pretty sad since some are being neglected. I guess the National Parks get higher priority when it comes to funding, probably since more popular too compared to the National Forests.