14 ms·

Toronto carpenter builds 'tiny shelters' for the homeless. The city isn't happy

119 points by webmaven 6y ago

mkoubaa 6y ago
Homeless shelters are awful places. Not only because of the conditions there but also sometimes the conditions for being there. I know someone who was kicked out of one once for not participating in a Christian prayer (he is Muslim). I can't imagine a better and cheaper solution than the man in the article came up with. It's clear the city leaders prefer to stick their head in the sand than to entertain real solutions
- testesttest 6y ago
  Shanty towns aren't really a "solution". I used to have a park near me. It was nice. Now it is a small tent city. I wish my city cared.
  - brailsafe 6y ago
    Well, you're part of the city. What would you vote for to improve the situation for homeless and non-homeless people?
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      There’s nothing a city (or state) can do that will not result in higher and higher expenses from other cities (or states) sending you their homeless. It’s the same problem as providing healthcare (or even just mental healthcare). In the absence of federal action, the solution thus far has been to use police to harass homeless and keep them moving along or sequestered in certain areas, or to live in suburbs that you need cars to survive in.
      - cletus 6y ago
        Not sure why you’re being downvoted because you raise a valid point: cities often “solve” their homeless problem by shipping their homeless to other cities. After all, a bus ticket is cheaper than providing shelter. Cities that are extremely homeless friendly find themselves with an influx both organically (some choose to relocate themselves) and from other cities. This is an issue in Portland and SF, to name just two. Note: I’m not advocating ignoring or not helping the homeless. It’s just a difficult problem.
      - brailsafe 6y ago
        This was my thought when reading the parent's comment, though I was curious if they had a particular idea in mind at the city level. It seems like everyone shits on the city, and sometimes rightfully so, but cities ideally function as high-bandwidth/low-latency diverse economic regions where space is consequently at a premium. It seems like there's not a lot of margin within that system if a bunch of people fall outside of that (or are literally shipped in) the nature of the city would have to evolve to solve an intractable problem on its own. Maybe they even make some headway for a while, now the streets are empty and some other cities decide they can start shipping their homeless again.
    - alexashka 6y ago
      Legalize drugs, prostitution and all other vices that prop up organized crime. People who can't contribute within a city, need to be sorted and moved to places where they can contribute in some basic capacity, as simple as working in a grocery store part time in a small town. It doesn't cost hardly anything to have a small apartment in a small town and have food, a community and a good simple life. Everyone needs to either contribute, or receive a subsidy from someone who is currently contributing. Society works when people work to make society work. People seem to have lost sight of that.
  - proc0 6y ago
    These would be alternative to tents, slightly more permanent, and therefore have the advantage of allowing some control over their placement. I can see this as a beginning to an alternative way to solve it that could make everyone happy, by spreading out semi-permanent shelter strategically, and preventing all kinds of things by isolating people this way while at the same time providing shelter and ideally hygiene also.
    - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
      The point is that we should be housing folks with proper housing instead. Sheds do not make everyone happy - would you, if you found yourself homeless, be happy living in a shed for months? What if you have children? Do you want to share showers and toilets? Always eat communally? Be without your own refrigerator? Do you feel comfortable with family and friends staying in these sheds?
      - mkoubaa 6y ago
        The actual choice is between sheds and the sidewalk so I disagree with you.
      - proc0 6y ago
        Sure it's not a straight forward solution. "Proper housing" however, as defined by many city/county authorities, tends to be an overkill solution, in my opinion. I believe setting someone who was on the streets for some time with a regular apartment, might be setting them up for failure because it could prove to be too big of a step to take. One day you have no responsibilities, and then you have to pay rent and keep a job presumably (if we're talking about a real solution that helps them help themselves). A semi-permanent and cheap alternative gives people extra time to figure their life out and make the proper moves to then be able to keep a place and a job.
shimonabi 6y ago
Dog houses are not a solution.
- gumby 6y ago
  It doesn’t sound like he intends them to be. Just a temporary patch on the problem.
  - EvilEy3 6y ago
    There's nothing more permanent than "temporary" solution.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      There's always drying of hypothermia.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  Tents aren't either. We should tell homeless people because they don't seem to be aware. When people in charge do not care, some people have the courage to look for achievable betterment. If I was homeless, I would really prefer the dog house and I would be glad somebody really cared. Plus they look great. Shanty towns aren't a solution but they are the best achievable solution to the people that build them. Or is it really a lack of care or do homeless people have the social role of reminding working people what could happen to them if they decided to did not want to do that shitty job anymore ? I am aware that homelessness is problem that is more complex than it seems. Unsurprisingly, those who fall into homelessness, generally start in life some kind of handicap whether it is a psychological, social or physical handicap. Drug abuse is a real problem but experiments show that a more stable and less stressful life leads to reduced and better drug use patterns rather than buy all the drug you can because there might be no tomorrow. I won't go into discussing whether drug abuse is a cause or consequence of homelessness as it can be both or none. Having said all that, I doubt there's any political will to "solve" as those people don't vote, just get the cops to make them go away from the places where people who vote live. But It's possible I am being cynical.
nomdep 6y ago
I couldn't find a single photo of a tiny shelter in the whole article.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- evan_ 6y ago
  There are a few in the linked gofundme. https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign=p_cp_url&utm_medium=os&utm_source=customer https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign...
- RandomWorker 6y ago
  https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign=p_cp_url&utm_medium=os&utm_source=customer https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign... Some can be seen on the gofundme. More info plus video on CBC https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mobile-shelters-homelessness-covid19-1.5777158 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mobile-shelters-homel... One more; https://broadview.org/tiny-homes-khaleel-seivwright/ https://broadview.org/tiny-homes-khaleel-seivwright/
  - Fezzik 6y ago
    The NYT article seems (to me) to have both the best photos and the best write-up: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/world/canada/khaleel-seivwright-toronto-homeless.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/world/canada/khaleel-seiv...
  - waheoo 6y ago
    Oh yea, that's a problem. They're shanty shacks. Welcome to the Toronto slums.
    - Noumenon72 6y ago
      It's low-income housing. It doesn't have any problematic slumlike qualities like stolen electrical, trash, or dilapidation.
olivermarks 6y ago
'people without housing opted to sleep outside in tents rather than accept the heightened risk at the shelters'.... This issue is more complex than it appears. The catchall phrase 'homeless' doesn't begin to describe the three horsemen of the unsheltered apocalypse: Substance abuse, Serious mental illness and indigents. While the shelters are often very rough drug dens, ironically many substance abuse casualties refuse care and walk out of other services facilities because they won't or can't abide by the sobriety rules. I'm very enthusiastic about firms like palletshelter.com because local authorities can quickly set up their heat & ac equipped tiny homes on local land and infrastructure to serve the three distinct group's very different needs. What doesn't work is allowing addicts to camp out in downtown areas for obvious hygiene and practical reasons. This chap who is using his carpentry skills to 'help the homeless' is arguably a well meaning co dependent. California is an absolute disaster area right now, with half the USA homeless and more coming, 13 billion spent in the last three years on a problem that is getting worse, and the misguided 'housing first' dogma dominating political decision making. The sooner we start behaving responsibly towards the unsheltered and take their disparate issues and needs seriously in the western world the sooner we can begin to tackle this huge issue. Building favelas and skid rows in major cities is a recipe for disaster and so are attempts to provide free housing for everyone who doesn't have one for obvious economic and behavioral/medical reasons. https://vimeo.com/532718306 https://vimeo.com/532718306 Venice Beach in LA 2021
- cigaser 6y ago
  How about we stop moralising and just provide shelter? Half of population is hooked on opioids and psych drugs. But somehow it is unacceptable for homeless to get high. It is responsibility of city hall to provide basic infrastructure. That includes showers and toilets!
  - EvilEy3 6y ago
    > Half of population is hooked on opioids and psych drugs. But somehow it is unacceptable for homeless to get high. Indeed. It must be unacceptable for everyone. Drugs, like religion, is a cancer of society.
  - 6y ago
nanoshelter 6y ago
Occupod.org Nanoshelter.com I built over twenty of these mobile nanoshelters so far. $155 each. The excuse of not a long term solution equates to corrupt morals and could be a sign of anti human bias or some mental issue.
randomsearch 6y ago
Aside: having a little first and close secondhand experience of homelessness and hostel provision, it seems to me that many people think drugs and mental health issues are the key causes. This is untrue. I'd say there is a "core problem" of those issues, which would be very difficult to solve, but it is a minority. I also wonder how much those problems are secondary symptoms rather than causes. Live on the street long enough and you'll be wanting an escape, for example. In London my experience was that a large number (majority?) sleeping on the streets were there because of benefit sanctions, i.e. they simply could not afford to live in a house as the government had removed their social welfare. Some people were waiting to be housed etc. It only takes a moment's thought to notice (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, (b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.
- 3dee 6y ago
  Maybe it depends on the country. But after working with homeless people in the Netherlands I completely agree with you. I helped homeless people who had a job but could not afford a house anymore for different reasons. Most were helped with housing after some time. But if that time is long the temptation to take more alcohol than you should is right around the corner.
  - MomoXenosaga 6y ago
    The Netherlands has a pretty effective social housing program. Not flawless but millions of people have a roof over their head thanks to government assistance.
    - LaurensBER 6y ago
      The effectiveness unfortunately has eroded over the past years. There's a huge supply gap in almost all major cities. Moving people to the other side of the country for a house might not always be a bad things (it could help them break away from a toxic social circle) but it also tears them away from family, their job and their support system. With the forecast being that the housing crisis will last until 2030 I'm not sure how much longer it will be effective.
aphextron 6y ago
They built an encampment like this under the 27th street overpass in West Oakland. It immediately turned into a festering cesspool of filth. Putting people in doghouses is not a solution to the homeless problem.
- jxramos 6y ago
  I happened to be touring the area in the not too recent past and had to travel by Amtrak long distance. When it passed through Oakland and the east bay I couldn't believe the devastated scenes I was able to witness. These sights are otherwise hidden from plain sight since trains typically travel through less than desirable areas. My jaw dropped. I saw stretches of abandoned vehicles, burned out vehicles, trash piles, shanty towns, it was crazy.
dmingod666 6y ago
This looks like a couple of iterations behind the multi story slums found in various parts of Mumbai and other parts of Asia..
dawnerd 6y ago
The micro/tiny homes in Portland seem to be doing pretty well. Hasn't turned into a disaster like some people said would happen. It sure beats seeing people living in their own trash piles under bridges. It's really sad the gov isn't doing more, and gets upset when people try to help. The people who complain about homeless camps are also the same ones partially responsible for it in the first place.
- aphextron 6y ago
  >The people who complain about homeless camps are also the same ones partially responsible for it in the first place. We are all responsible at some level for not holding politicians accountable for a problem that they created. The real problem is the long term, destitute, mentally ill homeless. Not the crust kids or the down on their luck people who are out of work. They can be handled mostly with jobs programs, community outreach, and a housing based approach. But the people who are physically incapable of caring for themselves require legal intervention. We used to institutionalize these people, and give them some modicum of a dignified life, but that ended with the Reagan administration [0]. The result is that now we literally treat stray dogs with more compassion in this country. [0] https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-reagan-and-the-federal-deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/ https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-re...
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    There's plenty of evidence that even people who can't fully care for themselves will be better off in supportive housing. For a simple example, it's a lot easier to stay on medication when the bottle is in the same place every time you need it.
- specialist 6y ago
  There are numerous encampments near my house. Options for upgrading the typical tent to shelters, yurts, microhomes would be awesome. Society should also provide ad hoc sanitation, waste management, misc safety and convenience. These semi permanent encampments should automatically get honeypots, water stations, trash bins, and so forth. Something, anything. Just to make their lives less terrible, less dangerous.
fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
The city won’t allow professional homebuilders to construct enough real housing units that meet the building code, why would they let amateurs build pseudo housing?
- the_only_law 6y ago
  I have a feeling they won’t. I saw a video about a similar project in LA. City came down on it hard while some bureaucrat rambled on about some vague “plan to end homelessness” of his.
paulcarroty 6y ago
Wow, this is truly hacker spirit! Appreciate it as Christian and carpenter assistant in young age.
ilaksh 6y ago
If you look at history you will see that this situation has occurred several times in the past on a fairly predictable schedule. It is generally followed by large-scale warfare which resolves the economic issues by deploying massive coordinated killing efforts.
- eplanit 6y ago
  We're due and ready. China seems ready, too, and without them we're ready for civil war on our own. It's tragically, unfortunately true, that a (big) war would be like a reset... economic rebuilding follows, but in what kind of society and economic organization would then be the question. I think a civil war is exactly what the CCP wants (obviously) and is fomenting. It would destroy us. Ww3 would probably unify us, but carries huge risks. Fun times.
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    If we have a civil war who will buy the nonstick frying pans? And the fanatics who win have the bomb pointed at them? I think they'd rather we slowly wound down in a predictable fashion.
  - ilaksh 6y ago
    To be clear, I believe that wars are tragic and criminal, and that humans have always at least pretended to be better than animals. But wars bring humans down to the level of ant colonies. We really are better than ants though. And individual human lives have value. There is no reason for war to resolve our technical issues. The economy is a technical and logistical problem.
tasubotadas 6y ago
Yeah... Everybody is kind-spirited until you start living in slums. What's a pity here that the media is doing victimbaiting to get some extra page views. Most of the people do not want to have random and scruffy-looking shacks on side-walks while they are getting to work in the morning. The local government is just enforcing that because that's the job they've been elected to do. That might be a hard pill to swallow for somebody who likes to pretend that they care about other people, but, most likely, that municipality will be reelected because most people support what they are doing.
- zarzavat 6y ago
  If cities don't want slums to exist, they need to provide subsidised housing. Shelter is a basic human need, so either a city builds it or people will build their own.
  - webinvest 6y ago
    No, the city can just provide public land away from the city center where people are permitted to set up their own tents. Like in a fruit orchard or something. Budgets are very constrained to the amounts permitted by sales, property, and excise taxes with many voters not really wanting to increase the first two. In my city, the city has already closed down 3/4ths of the libraries due to budget constraints. The cost-benefit analysis of creating subsidized housing oftentimes just doesn’t pan out and there are better uses of city funds —- like on libraries.
torgian 6y ago
I was homeless for a few months. It was shit, and the shelter I was able to access was just ok, but not a safe place. This guy saw a need and did something. Whether it is legal or not, isn’t the question. Why the government isn’t working with him rather than against him is the real question. Very few people have the balls to even try anything to help, even just giving money. The fact the government doesn’t want to tackle the homeless problem is just another version of “wait until they go away”. This is not a new problem. Not all homeless people are druggies or crazies. And the homeless problem will only get worse, not better. It’s too bad Toronto wants to waste time and resources on seeking legal action on the guy for trying to do the right thing.
- uzakov 6y ago
  I am very sorry to hear about your experience I hope all is better now. My comments are by no means an attack on you. > Whether it is legal or not, isn’t the question. I think it's perfectly normal to discuss whether things are legal or not. IANAL but what that person did seems illegal to me. > Very few people have the balls to even try anything to help, even just giving money. Would you not agree anyone who pays taxes is technically speaking helping? > Why the government isn’t working with him rather than against him is the real question. Many organisations follow very top-down approach and it might be extremely difficult for staff "on the ground" to make big decisions.
  - Y-bar 6y ago
    > [...] but what that person did seems illegal to me. Reminds me of this quote: > “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” There are many laws which are unjust, what is right and what is legal does not always align. Maybe it was illegal. But should it really be? To me what this person did looked about as illegal as someone breaking an entry into a burning house to aid the people inside.
    - uzakov 6y ago
      > There are many laws which are unjust, what is right and what is legal does not always align What is considered right highly varies by country and culture, when you say "right" to what country/culture do you refer to? > To me what this person did looked about as illegal as someone breaking an entry into a burning house to aid the people inside. I am not commenting on the moral side of this persons actions, only the legal side.
Woodi 6y ago
Again, real problem is socialism [thinking] - that system will resolve all problems. But any systems are unperfect - "never say never" do not apply here. We have society/tax/government sponsored homeless shelters, food points, social workers etc etc. But it is obviously not enough because every "system" is generalization -> some or most cases are resolved but some cases are lost. More, having "help system" sometimes PROHIBITS real help, example: article above ! It is epidemy and they prohibit more then sensible help ! Possible fire problem ? Or just someone didn't like this ? Other example: some baker was giving free food to poor peoples and government tax institution send him to court because someone (poor people) gained somerealynothing and no tax was paid... - beyound stupidity or evil . Even more: when there is official help system some people take it as excuse for not doing personal help, eg: "GO TO FOOD POINT YOU $%%*(&^". Socialism mentality is like this. Plus corruption acceptance, IMO always. Help systems are part of our better civilisation. But preventing personal help is effective destroying that civilisation. My proposition: every city clerk take one mini-wooden-shelter with homeless person on his house front grass lawn. And providing some food for your poor neighber is pretty obvious, right ?
estreeper 6y ago
For testimonials from some of the people living in these Toronto tiny shelters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdbmLKaGleg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdbmLKaGleg Some interesting notes about the shelters from the video: - they are on wheels, and because they're off the ground they stay warm and dry even when it's raining - they can be locked from the outside or inside, which gives people a sense of safety (e.g. people's tents can get slashed up, but these are strong), and they can also safely leave possessions there - they let people sleep much better (longer, more comfortable) The amount having these things improves a person's psychological state is immense.
jobjob 6y ago
They could not put a single picture of these ‘tiny shelters’ in the whole article?
greatgib 6y ago
I will not say that it is nice for homeless, but who want a slum to be created in the middle of a clean modern city? Think about all the other problems that this create for the other inhabitants related to hygiene, trash, ... Similarly parks are parks, and woods are woods, if you setup slum houses there, they are not parks and become towns...
gwmass 6y ago
But at least in Canada the homeless will be addressed by their proper pronouns! One has to set priorities.
throwastrike 6y ago
This is a project with good intentions. But the responsibility lies with the government (and therefore the collective). I don’t understand why our society cannot feed the hungry and house the poor when we have enough resources to do so (in fact do it 1000x over). Some will argue it is to disincentivize people from not working. That’s a bullshit argument in my view because 80% of the people I’ve met in desk jobs do absolutely NOTHING.
mattjaynes 6y ago
To see a short interview of the carpenter along with some footage of the construction of the shelters, here's a Good Morning America segment on the story: https://youtu.be/0zkrH6yquWM https://youtu.be/0zkrH6yquWM
kingsuper20 6y ago
I'm always a bit unsatisfied with the reasons given for homelessness and the handwaving that goes on. (anecdote alert) Being old enough to have seen a real sea change in the problem, I'm unconvinced that the town I grew up in (which went from essentially zero homeless people in the 1960s to a very largish and noticeable contingent now) had a huge increase in alcohol/drug abuse, house price to income ratio (I looked it up), ramp up in mentally ill. It's easy to slide into using changes in the social substrate (single parent households, death of small business, lack of peer pressure, lack of strict law enforcement) as reasons, but then the handwaving just starts all over again. As far as building small people-boxes is concerned, I've seen that very movie before, and more than once. What usually happens is that some local stores donate materials in order to gain social credit score, people get together over a couple of weekends to screw together moveable teeny-tiny houses, declare victory, in six months the wood has become scrap and is dragged out of the woods or vacant lots bit by bit. I'm not so sure that a favela, if that's really what you want, can be grown inorganically.
overton 6y ago
Maybe if the city of Toronto isn't happy with tiny shelters, maybe they should allow new 'proper' houses to be built. Toronto is the sixth most expensive housing market (by income) in the world, yet they still mostly use a 1960's era city plan that forbids dense residential development in most areas. People talk a lot about mental illness and drug addiction, which undoubtedly is part of the problem, but when you have such an extreme cost of living burden for living in a basically mediocre city, I'm not sure why anybody is surprised at the social problems that result.
- alexashka 6y ago
  Do you really think the solution to homeless people is to just build more buildings and give it to them for free? Hint: if you announce to the world that you're doing that, there'll suddenly be a lot of homeless people coming from everywhere to partake in your generosity. As an aside: I'm in need of money, how much are you willing to give me? You'd be resulting in a social problem by not giving me money. Let me know how much you're personally invested in solving social problems. If you think it's an absurd ask, I agree. That's exactly how I feel about the homeless. If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to, anymore than I get to take some of your money because you happen to have more.
  - overton 6y ago
    Did I say for free? No, I didn't. The idea is that you allow anybody to build more supply, and the price comes down. Did I make any mention of spending to solve the problem? No, I didn't so quit putting words in my mouth. Making economic migrants of everyone is not a good solution. Believe it or not, some people have roots in their communities. Not to mention cities are where jobs and amenities are. What, is everybody going to move to Barrie all of a sudden? Terrible idea and 100% lacking in empathy or good sense. Oh also I don't know if you noticed but the housing crisis is national now.
  - gbanfalvi 6y ago
    Pretty sure the parent poster wasn’t talking about giving building housing and giving it away for free. > they still mostly use a 1960's era city plan that forbids dense residential development in most areas. I big source of homelessness is... well... simply being priced out of living somewhere. > If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to I don’t think most people live where they do out of some sense of entitlement. They just live there because that’s what they once could afford or where they found work. Losing one’s home can also mean losing one’s job and ultimately homelessness. Bad city planning only worsens income inequality and the only ones benefitting from this are landlords and speculators.
ivankolev 6y ago
Somehow related to the general problem of lack of housing, in Toronto you could build laneway suites [0], and there is a proposal to allow backyard suites. [0] https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/community-partners/affordable-housing-partners/laneway-suites-program/ https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/community-partners/a...

119 points by webmaven 6y ago

Homeless shelters are awful places. Not only because of the conditions there but also sometimes the conditions for being there. I know someone who was kicked out of one once for not participating in a Christian prayer (he is Muslim). I can't imagine a better and cheaper solution than the man in the article came up with. It's clear the city leaders prefer to stick their head in the sand than to entertain real solutions

testesttest 6y ago
Shanty towns aren't really a "solution". I used to have a park near me. It was nice. Now it is a small tent city. I wish my city cared.
- brailsafe 6y ago
  Well, you're part of the city. What would you vote for to improve the situation for homeless and non-homeless people?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    There’s nothing a city (or state) can do that will not result in higher and higher expenses from other cities (or states) sending you their homeless. It’s the same problem as providing healthcare (or even just mental healthcare). In the absence of federal action, the solution thus far has been to use police to harass homeless and keep them moving along or sequestered in certain areas, or to live in suburbs that you need cars to survive in.
    - cletus 6y ago
      Not sure why you’re being downvoted because you raise a valid point: cities often “solve” their homeless problem by shipping their homeless to other cities. After all, a bus ticket is cheaper than providing shelter. Cities that are extremely homeless friendly find themselves with an influx both organically (some choose to relocate themselves) and from other cities. This is an issue in Portland and SF, to name just two. Note: I’m not advocating ignoring or not helping the homeless. It’s just a difficult problem.
    - brailsafe 6y ago
      This was my thought when reading the parent's comment, though I was curious if they had a particular idea in mind at the city level. It seems like everyone shits on the city, and sometimes rightfully so, but cities ideally function as high-bandwidth/low-latency diverse economic regions where space is consequently at a premium. It seems like there's not a lot of margin within that system if a bunch of people fall outside of that (or are literally shipped in) the nature of the city would have to evolve to solve an intractable problem on its own. Maybe they even make some headway for a while, now the streets are empty and some other cities decide they can start shipping their homeless again.
  - alexashka 6y ago
    Legalize drugs, prostitution and all other vices that prop up organized crime. People who can't contribute within a city, need to be sorted and moved to places where they can contribute in some basic capacity, as simple as working in a grocery store part time in a small town. It doesn't cost hardly anything to have a small apartment in a small town and have food, a community and a good simple life. Everyone needs to either contribute, or receive a subsidy from someone who is currently contributing. Society works when people work to make society work. People seem to have lost sight of that.
- proc0 6y ago
  These would be alternative to tents, slightly more permanent, and therefore have the advantage of allowing some control over their placement. I can see this as a beginning to an alternative way to solve it that could make everyone happy, by spreading out semi-permanent shelter strategically, and preventing all kinds of things by isolating people this way while at the same time providing shelter and ideally hygiene also.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    The point is that we should be housing folks with proper housing instead. Sheds do not make everyone happy - would you, if you found yourself homeless, be happy living in a shed for months? What if you have children? Do you want to share showers and toilets? Always eat communally? Be without your own refrigerator? Do you feel comfortable with family and friends staying in these sheds?
    - mkoubaa 6y ago
      The actual choice is between sheds and the sidewalk so I disagree with you.
    - proc0 6y ago
      Sure it's not a straight forward solution. "Proper housing" however, as defined by many city/county authorities, tends to be an overkill solution, in my opinion. I believe setting someone who was on the streets for some time with a regular apartment, might be setting them up for failure because it could prove to be too big of a step to take. One day you have no responsibilities, and then you have to pay rent and keep a job presumably (if we're talking about a real solution that helps them help themselves). A semi-permanent and cheap alternative gives people extra time to figure their life out and make the proper moves to then be able to keep a place and a job.

shimonabi 6y ago

Dog houses are not a solution.

gumby 6y ago
It doesn’t sound like he intends them to be. Just a temporary patch on the problem.
- EvilEy3 6y ago
  There's nothing more permanent than "temporary" solution.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    There's always drying of hypothermia.
cassepipe 6y ago
Tents aren't either. We should tell homeless people because they don't seem to be aware. When people in charge do not care, some people have the courage to look for achievable betterment. If I was homeless, I would really prefer the dog house and I would be glad somebody really cared. Plus they look great. Shanty towns aren't a solution but they are the best achievable solution to the people that build them. Or is it really a lack of care or do homeless people have the social role of reminding working people what could happen to them if they decided to did not want to do that shitty job anymore ? I am aware that homelessness is problem that is more complex than it seems. Unsurprisingly, those who fall into homelessness, generally start in life some kind of handicap whether it is a psychological, social or physical handicap. Drug abuse is a real problem but experiments show that a more stable and less stressful life leads to reduced and better drug use patterns rather than buy all the drug you can because there might be no tomorrow. I won't go into discussing whether drug abuse is a cause or consequence of homelessness as it can be both or none. Having said all that, I doubt there's any political will to "solve" as those people don't vote, just get the cops to make them go away from the places where people who vote live. But It's possible I am being cynical.

nomdep 6y ago

I couldn't find a single photo of a tiny shelter in the whole article.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
evan_ 6y ago
There are a few in the linked gofundme. https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign=p_cp_url&utm_medium=os&utm_source=customer https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign...
RandomWorker 6y ago
https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign=p_cp_url&utm_medium=os&utm_source=customer https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign... Some can be seen on the gofundme. More info plus video on CBC https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mobile-shelters-homelessness-covid19-1.5777158 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mobile-shelters-homel... One more; https://broadview.org/tiny-homes-khaleel-seivwright/ https://broadview.org/tiny-homes-khaleel-seivwright/
- Fezzik 6y ago
  The NYT article seems (to me) to have both the best photos and the best write-up: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/world/canada/khaleel-seivwright-toronto-homeless.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/world/canada/khaleel-seiv...
- waheoo 6y ago
  Oh yea, that's a problem. They're shanty shacks. Welcome to the Toronto slums.
  - Noumenon72 6y ago
    It's low-income housing. It doesn't have any problematic slumlike qualities like stolen electrical, trash, or dilapidation.

olivermarks 6y ago

'people without housing opted to sleep outside in tents rather than accept the heightened risk at the shelters'.... This issue is more complex than it appears. The catchall phrase 'homeless' doesn't begin to describe the three horsemen of the unsheltered apocalypse: Substance abuse, Serious mental illness and indigents. While the shelters are often very rough drug dens, ironically many substance abuse casualties refuse care and walk out of other services facilities because they won't or can't abide by the sobriety rules. I'm very enthusiastic about firms like palletshelter.com because local authorities can quickly set up their heat & ac equipped tiny homes on local land and infrastructure to serve the three distinct group's very different needs. What doesn't work is allowing addicts to camp out in downtown areas for obvious hygiene and practical reasons. This chap who is using his carpentry skills to 'help the homeless' is arguably a well meaning co dependent. California is an absolute disaster area right now, with half the USA homeless and more coming, 13 billion spent in the last three years on a problem that is getting worse, and the misguided 'housing first' dogma dominating political decision making. The sooner we start behaving responsibly towards the unsheltered and take their disparate issues and needs seriously in the western world the sooner we can begin to tackle this huge issue. Building favelas and skid rows in major cities is a recipe for disaster and so are attempts to provide free housing for everyone who doesn't have one for obvious economic and behavioral/medical reasons. https://vimeo.com/532718306 https://vimeo.com/532718306 Venice Beach in LA 2021

cigaser 6y ago
How about we stop moralising and just provide shelter? Half of population is hooked on opioids and psych drugs. But somehow it is unacceptable for homeless to get high. It is responsibility of city hall to provide basic infrastructure. That includes showers and toilets!
- EvilEy3 6y ago
  > Half of population is hooked on opioids and psych drugs. But somehow it is unacceptable for homeless to get high. Indeed. It must be unacceptable for everyone. Drugs, like religion, is a cancer of society.
- 6y ago

nanoshelter 6y ago

Occupod.org Nanoshelter.com I built over twenty of these mobile nanoshelters so far. $155 each. The excuse of not a long term solution equates to corrupt morals and could be a sign of anti human bias or some mental issue.

randomsearch 6y ago

Aside: having a little first and close secondhand experience of homelessness and hostel provision, it seems to me that many people think drugs and mental health issues are the key causes. This is untrue. I'd say there is a "core problem" of those issues, which would be very difficult to solve, but it is a minority. I also wonder how much those problems are secondary symptoms rather than causes. Live on the street long enough and you'll be wanting an escape, for example. In London my experience was that a large number (majority?) sleeping on the streets were there because of benefit sanctions, i.e. they simply could not afford to live in a house as the government had removed their social welfare. Some people were waiting to be housed etc. It only takes a moment's thought to notice (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, (b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.

3dee 6y ago
Maybe it depends on the country. But after working with homeless people in the Netherlands I completely agree with you. I helped homeless people who had a job but could not afford a house anymore for different reasons. Most were helped with housing after some time. But if that time is long the temptation to take more alcohol than you should is right around the corner.
- MomoXenosaga 6y ago
  The Netherlands has a pretty effective social housing program. Not flawless but millions of people have a roof over their head thanks to government assistance.
  - LaurensBER 6y ago
    The effectiveness unfortunately has eroded over the past years. There's a huge supply gap in almost all major cities. Moving people to the other side of the country for a house might not always be a bad things (it could help them break away from a toxic social circle) but it also tears them away from family, their job and their support system. With the forecast being that the housing crisis will last until 2030 I'm not sure how much longer it will be effective.

aphextron 6y ago

They built an encampment like this under the 27th street overpass in West Oakland. It immediately turned into a festering cesspool of filth. Putting people in doghouses is not a solution to the homeless problem.

jxramos 6y ago
I happened to be touring the area in the not too recent past and had to travel by Amtrak long distance. When it passed through Oakland and the east bay I couldn't believe the devastated scenes I was able to witness. These sights are otherwise hidden from plain sight since trains typically travel through less than desirable areas. My jaw dropped. I saw stretches of abandoned vehicles, burned out vehicles, trash piles, shanty towns, it was crazy.

dmingod666 6y ago

This looks like a couple of iterations behind the multi story slums found in various parts of Mumbai and other parts of Asia..

dawnerd 6y ago

The micro/tiny homes in Portland seem to be doing pretty well. Hasn't turned into a disaster like some people said would happen. It sure beats seeing people living in their own trash piles under bridges. It's really sad the gov isn't doing more, and gets upset when people try to help. The people who complain about homeless camps are also the same ones partially responsible for it in the first place.

aphextron 6y ago
>The people who complain about homeless camps are also the same ones partially responsible for it in the first place. We are all responsible at some level for not holding politicians accountable for a problem that they created. The real problem is the long term, destitute, mentally ill homeless. Not the crust kids or the down on their luck people who are out of work. They can be handled mostly with jobs programs, community outreach, and a housing based approach. But the people who are physically incapable of caring for themselves require legal intervention. We used to institutionalize these people, and give them some modicum of a dignified life, but that ended with the Reagan administration [0]. The result is that now we literally treat stray dogs with more compassion in this country. [0] https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-reagan-and-the-federal-deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/ https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-re...
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  There's plenty of evidence that even people who can't fully care for themselves will be better off in supportive housing. For a simple example, it's a lot easier to stay on medication when the bottle is in the same place every time you need it.
specialist 6y ago
There are numerous encampments near my house. Options for upgrading the typical tent to shelters, yurts, microhomes would be awesome. Society should also provide ad hoc sanitation, waste management, misc safety and convenience. These semi permanent encampments should automatically get honeypots, water stations, trash bins, and so forth. Something, anything. Just to make their lives less terrible, less dangerous.

fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago

The city won’t allow professional homebuilders to construct enough real housing units that meet the building code, why would they let amateurs build pseudo housing?

the_only_law 6y ago
I have a feeling they won’t. I saw a video about a similar project in LA. City came down on it hard while some bureaucrat rambled on about some vague “plan to end homelessness” of his.

paulcarroty 6y ago

Wow, this is truly hacker spirit! Appreciate it as Christian and carpenter assistant in young age.

ilaksh 6y ago

If you look at history you will see that this situation has occurred several times in the past on a fairly predictable schedule. It is generally followed by large-scale warfare which resolves the economic issues by deploying massive coordinated killing efforts.

eplanit 6y ago
We're due and ready. China seems ready, too, and without them we're ready for civil war on our own. It's tragically, unfortunately true, that a (big) war would be like a reset... economic rebuilding follows, but in what kind of society and economic organization would then be the question. I think a civil war is exactly what the CCP wants (obviously) and is fomenting. It would destroy us. Ww3 would probably unify us, but carries huge risks. Fun times.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  If we have a civil war who will buy the nonstick frying pans? And the fanatics who win have the bomb pointed at them? I think they'd rather we slowly wound down in a predictable fashion.
- ilaksh 6y ago
  To be clear, I believe that wars are tragic and criminal, and that humans have always at least pretended to be better than animals. But wars bring humans down to the level of ant colonies. We really are better than ants though. And individual human lives have value. There is no reason for war to resolve our technical issues. The economy is a technical and logistical problem.

tasubotadas 6y ago

Yeah... Everybody is kind-spirited until you start living in slums. What's a pity here that the media is doing victimbaiting to get some extra page views. Most of the people do not want to have random and scruffy-looking shacks on side-walks while they are getting to work in the morning. The local government is just enforcing that because that's the job they've been elected to do. That might be a hard pill to swallow for somebody who likes to pretend that they care about other people, but, most likely, that municipality will be reelected because most people support what they are doing.

zarzavat 6y ago
If cities don't want slums to exist, they need to provide subsidised housing. Shelter is a basic human need, so either a city builds it or people will build their own.
- webinvest 6y ago
  No, the city can just provide public land away from the city center where people are permitted to set up their own tents. Like in a fruit orchard or something. Budgets are very constrained to the amounts permitted by sales, property, and excise taxes with many voters not really wanting to increase the first two. In my city, the city has already closed down 3/4ths of the libraries due to budget constraints. The cost-benefit analysis of creating subsidized housing oftentimes just doesn’t pan out and there are better uses of city funds —- like on libraries.

torgian 6y ago

I was homeless for a few months. It was shit, and the shelter I was able to access was just ok, but not a safe place. This guy saw a need and did something. Whether it is legal or not, isn’t the question. Why the government isn’t working with him rather than against him is the real question. Very few people have the balls to even try anything to help, even just giving money. The fact the government doesn’t want to tackle the homeless problem is just another version of “wait until they go away”. This is not a new problem. Not all homeless people are druggies or crazies. And the homeless problem will only get worse, not better. It’s too bad Toronto wants to waste time and resources on seeking legal action on the guy for trying to do the right thing.

uzakov 6y ago
I am very sorry to hear about your experience I hope all is better now. My comments are by no means an attack on you. > Whether it is legal or not, isn’t the question. I think it's perfectly normal to discuss whether things are legal or not. IANAL but what that person did seems illegal to me. > Very few people have the balls to even try anything to help, even just giving money. Would you not agree anyone who pays taxes is technically speaking helping? > Why the government isn’t working with him rather than against him is the real question. Many organisations follow very top-down approach and it might be extremely difficult for staff "on the ground" to make big decisions.
- Y-bar 6y ago
  > [...] but what that person did seems illegal to me. Reminds me of this quote: > “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” There are many laws which are unjust, what is right and what is legal does not always align. Maybe it was illegal. But should it really be? To me what this person did looked about as illegal as someone breaking an entry into a burning house to aid the people inside.
  - uzakov 6y ago
    > There are many laws which are unjust, what is right and what is legal does not always align What is considered right highly varies by country and culture, when you say "right" to what country/culture do you refer to? > To me what this person did looked about as illegal as someone breaking an entry into a burning house to aid the people inside. I am not commenting on the moral side of this persons actions, only the legal side.

Woodi 6y ago

Again, real problem is socialism [thinking] - that system will resolve all problems. But any systems are unperfect - "never say never" do not apply here. We have society/tax/government sponsored homeless shelters, food points, social workers etc etc. But it is obviously not enough because every "system" is generalization -> some or most cases are resolved but some cases are lost. More, having "help system" sometimes PROHIBITS real help, example: article above ! It is epidemy and they prohibit more then sensible help ! Possible fire problem ? Or just someone didn't like this ? Other example: some baker was giving free food to poor peoples and government tax institution send him to court because someone (poor people) gained somerealynothing and no tax was paid... - beyound stupidity or evil . Even more: when there is official help system some people take it as excuse for not doing personal help, eg: "GO TO FOOD POINT YOU $%%*(&^". Socialism mentality is like this. Plus corruption acceptance, IMO always. Help systems are part of our better civilisation. But preventing personal help is effective destroying that civilisation. My proposition: every city clerk take one mini-wooden-shelter with homeless person on his house front grass lawn. And providing some food for your poor neighber is pretty obvious, right ?

estreeper 6y ago

For testimonials from some of the people living in these Toronto tiny shelters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdbmLKaGleg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdbmLKaGleg Some interesting notes about the shelters from the video: - they are on wheels, and because they're off the ground they stay warm and dry even when it's raining - they can be locked from the outside or inside, which gives people a sense of safety (e.g. people's tents can get slashed up, but these are strong), and they can also safely leave possessions there - they let people sleep much better (longer, more comfortable) The amount having these things improves a person's psychological state is immense.

jobjob 6y ago

They could not put a single picture of these ‘tiny shelters’ in the whole article?

greatgib 6y ago

I will not say that it is nice for homeless, but who want a slum to be created in the middle of a clean modern city? Think about all the other problems that this create for the other inhabitants related to hygiene, trash, ... Similarly parks are parks, and woods are woods, if you setup slum houses there, they are not parks and become towns...

gwmass 6y ago

But at least in Canada the homeless will be addressed by their proper pronouns! One has to set priorities.

throwastrike 6y ago

This is a project with good intentions. But the responsibility lies with the government (and therefore the collective). I don’t understand why our society cannot feed the hungry and house the poor when we have enough resources to do so (in fact do it 1000x over). Some will argue it is to disincentivize people from not working. That’s a bullshit argument in my view because 80% of the people I’ve met in desk jobs do absolutely NOTHING.

mattjaynes 6y ago

To see a short interview of the carpenter along with some footage of the construction of the shelters, here's a Good Morning America segment on the story: https://youtu.be/0zkrH6yquWM https://youtu.be/0zkrH6yquWM

kingsuper20 6y ago

I'm always a bit unsatisfied with the reasons given for homelessness and the handwaving that goes on. (anecdote alert) Being old enough to have seen a real sea change in the problem, I'm unconvinced that the town I grew up in (which went from essentially zero homeless people in the 1960s to a very largish and noticeable contingent now) had a huge increase in alcohol/drug abuse, house price to income ratio (I looked it up), ramp up in mentally ill. It's easy to slide into using changes in the social substrate (single parent households, death of small business, lack of peer pressure, lack of strict law enforcement) as reasons, but then the handwaving just starts all over again. As far as building small people-boxes is concerned, I've seen that very movie before, and more than once. What usually happens is that some local stores donate materials in order to gain social credit score, people get together over a couple of weekends to screw together moveable teeny-tiny houses, declare victory, in six months the wood has become scrap and is dragged out of the woods or vacant lots bit by bit. I'm not so sure that a favela, if that's really what you want, can be grown inorganically.

overton 6y ago

Maybe if the city of Toronto isn't happy with tiny shelters, maybe they should allow new 'proper' houses to be built. Toronto is the sixth most expensive housing market (by income) in the world, yet they still mostly use a 1960's era city plan that forbids dense residential development in most areas. People talk a lot about mental illness and drug addiction, which undoubtedly is part of the problem, but when you have such an extreme cost of living burden for living in a basically mediocre city, I'm not sure why anybody is surprised at the social problems that result.

alexashka 6y ago
Do you really think the solution to homeless people is to just build more buildings and give it to them for free? Hint: if you announce to the world that you're doing that, there'll suddenly be a lot of homeless people coming from everywhere to partake in your generosity. As an aside: I'm in need of money, how much are you willing to give me? You'd be resulting in a social problem by not giving me money. Let me know how much you're personally invested in solving social problems. If you think it's an absurd ask, I agree. That's exactly how I feel about the homeless. If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to, anymore than I get to take some of your money because you happen to have more.
- overton 6y ago
  Did I say for free? No, I didn't. The idea is that you allow anybody to build more supply, and the price comes down. Did I make any mention of spending to solve the problem? No, I didn't so quit putting words in my mouth. Making economic migrants of everyone is not a good solution. Believe it or not, some people have roots in their communities. Not to mention cities are where jobs and amenities are. What, is everybody going to move to Barrie all of a sudden? Terrible idea and 100% lacking in empathy or good sense. Oh also I don't know if you noticed but the housing crisis is national now.
- gbanfalvi 6y ago
  Pretty sure the parent poster wasn’t talking about giving building housing and giving it away for free. > they still mostly use a 1960's era city plan that forbids dense residential development in most areas. I big source of homelessness is... well... simply being priced out of living somewhere. > If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to I don’t think most people live where they do out of some sense of entitlement. They just live there because that’s what they once could afford or where they found work. Losing one’s home can also mean losing one’s job and ultimately homelessness. Bad city planning only worsens income inequality and the only ones benefitting from this are landlords and speculators.

ivankolev 6y ago

Somehow related to the general problem of lack of housing, in Toronto you could build laneway suites [0], and there is a proposal to allow backyard suites. [0] https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/community-partners/affordable-housing-partners/laneway-suites-program/ https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/community-partners/a...