6 ms·

The article is talking about tiny temporary shelters, not giving away houses, or expensive flats.

roenxi 5y ago
I live in one of the cities listed and if I were allowed to build my own shelter in the middle of one of it's public parks, I too would jump at the opportunity. This is some of the worlds most desirable real estate here. This isn't even a case of bad government policy, which I would usually arc up about. The article is homeless people taking over public land for private use without doing anything to justify that privilege. That isn't fair, if it is up for grabs I want it and I'd be behind a long queue of other people who want it. The right to use that land is worth a fortune. Being homeless, while sad, is not actually something that should be rewarded with free space in the centre of a metropolis. If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.
- joshjdr 5y ago
  Consider that often these situations are temporary. And consider that cities are where support services are. And consider that if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car. I just don’t think anybody is homeless in Toronto or London or any other city for the same reasons that rich people make them expensive cities. I’m pretty sure many homeless, if offered a home in the countryside, would happily oblige.
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    Well, most of them would be foolish to accept - they'd be trading a chance at getting the services they need for better immediate shelter, but be trapped in an economic dead end with no social services, no health care, lousy education and no way out. And then someone would whine that we shouldn't give handouts to people who live in rural areas, they should eat some bootstraps and move somewhere with opportunities......
  - JohnCohorn 5y ago
    > if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car That’s simply untrue. Owning a car is vastly less expensive than renting a dwelling in most cities. I’ve known people that went homeless, and it’s pretty common for them to...live in their car.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Those cars and vans quickly become non functional, however, at least where I live. The tires deflate and they become a hard temporary shelter that occupies on street parking rather than space for a tent in a park.
- lazyasciiart 5y ago
  The rich and homeless should be equally forbidden to build small shelters in the park? That sounds like it's been said before.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > The rich and homeless should be equally forbidden to build small shelters in the park? That sounds like it's been said before. You're probably thinking of this Anatole France[0] quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” [0] https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France
    - lazyasciiart 5y ago
      Yes.
- specialist 5y ago
  What are your thoughts about squatting? There's always fallow private lands, easements, empty parking lots, abandoned warehouses, etc.
  - sopp 5y ago
    In most large cities squatting cannot be a longer term solution, as it often doesnt take long to be explused from a place (in paris for example squats stay around from 2 to 6 months on average if you are lucky enough to manage to secure the place for the first week or so). Also depending on who runs and occupies the building, it might actually not always be a safe/sane housing option neither.
    - specialist 5y ago
      Agree with all. My open question wrt to squatting is the potential to incentivize keeping real estate in active use. If "use it or lose it" is official policy, it might help mitigate hoarding. A bit like some cities are now penalizing unoccupied condos, where investors buy up condos and then don't even rent them out.
- II2II 5y ago
  A couple of things to consider: This is a marginal case of private use of public lands. These are shelters, rather than homes. The size (2' by 6') and construction offers little more than physical security while sleeping. There are reasons why some homeless people prefer parks. For example: parks tend to be closer to social services and other means of support. There are also homeless people who find other places to squat. > If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable. Unfortunately, there are also people who believe that type of support means forced relocation. There are many reasons to oppose force relocation. In the mildest of terms, it is never intended to solve the root problem of poverty.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    There is a line to be drawn on what people can do in public parks. At the extremes: * It is totally reasonable that people sit in them and enjoy the sun. * It is totally unreasonable for a billionaire to wall a section off and build a mansion in it. Now we can debate where that line is drawn, but a professionally built plywood structure with door locks and smoke detectors is a lot closer to the unacceptable end than the alternative. That is starting to build up a permanent dwelling in a public space. I don't know how to solve homelessness, and I'll admit to not trying very hard. But if we can just hive off public spaces for people to live on, then there is no way the homeless are getting first pick. I know people who had to leave a major city due to housing costs and move to the country. If the topic of debate is repurposing public land for longer-term dwellings, they should get priority access to it over these homeless people.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Maybe we need to dedicate lots where self-policing groups of homeless people can put their temporary shelters, provide them with a porta potty, somewhere near a bus stop so they can get to work. This would be such a boon for so many struggling people.

I live in one of the cities listed and if I were allowed to build my own shelter in the middle of one of it's public parks, I too would jump at the opportunity. This is some of the worlds most desirable real estate here. This isn't even a case of bad government policy, which I would usually arc up about. The article is homeless people taking over public land for private use without doing anything to justify that privilege. That isn't fair, if it is up for grabs I want it and I'd be behind a long queue of other people who want it. The right to use that land is worth a fortune. Being homeless, while sad, is not actually something that should be rewarded with free space in the centre of a metropolis. If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.

joshjdr 5y ago
Consider that often these situations are temporary. And consider that cities are where support services are. And consider that if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car. I just don’t think anybody is homeless in Toronto or London or any other city for the same reasons that rich people make them expensive cities. I’m pretty sure many homeless, if offered a home in the countryside, would happily oblige.
- lazyasciiart 5y ago
  Well, most of them would be foolish to accept - they'd be trading a chance at getting the services they need for better immediate shelter, but be trapped in an economic dead end with no social services, no health care, lousy education and no way out. And then someone would whine that we shouldn't give handouts to people who live in rural areas, they should eat some bootstraps and move somewhere with opportunities......
- JohnCohorn 5y ago
  > if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car That’s simply untrue. Owning a car is vastly less expensive than renting a dwelling in most cities. I’ve known people that went homeless, and it’s pretty common for them to...live in their car.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Those cars and vans quickly become non functional, however, at least where I live. The tires deflate and they become a hard temporary shelter that occupies on street parking rather than space for a tent in a park.
lazyasciiart 5y ago
The rich and homeless should be equally forbidden to build small shelters in the park? That sounds like it's been said before.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > The rich and homeless should be equally forbidden to build small shelters in the park? That sounds like it's been said before. You're probably thinking of this Anatole France[0] quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” [0] https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    Yes.
specialist 5y ago
What are your thoughts about squatting? There's always fallow private lands, easements, empty parking lots, abandoned warehouses, etc.
- sopp 5y ago
  In most large cities squatting cannot be a longer term solution, as it often doesnt take long to be explused from a place (in paris for example squats stay around from 2 to 6 months on average if you are lucky enough to manage to secure the place for the first week or so). Also depending on who runs and occupies the building, it might actually not always be a safe/sane housing option neither.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Agree with all. My open question wrt to squatting is the potential to incentivize keeping real estate in active use. If "use it or lose it" is official policy, it might help mitigate hoarding. A bit like some cities are now penalizing unoccupied condos, where investors buy up condos and then don't even rent them out.
II2II 5y ago
A couple of things to consider: This is a marginal case of private use of public lands. These are shelters, rather than homes. The size (2' by 6') and construction offers little more than physical security while sleeping. There are reasons why some homeless people prefer parks. For example: parks tend to be closer to social services and other means of support. There are also homeless people who find other places to squat. > If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable. Unfortunately, there are also people who believe that type of support means forced relocation. There are many reasons to oppose force relocation. In the mildest of terms, it is never intended to solve the root problem of poverty.
- roenxi 5y ago
  There is a line to be drawn on what people can do in public parks. At the extremes: * It is totally reasonable that people sit in them and enjoy the sun. * It is totally unreasonable for a billionaire to wall a section off and build a mansion in it. Now we can debate where that line is drawn, but a professionally built plywood structure with door locks and smoke detectors is a lot closer to the unacceptable end than the alternative. That is starting to build up a permanent dwelling in a public space. I don't know how to solve homelessness, and I'll admit to not trying very hard. But if we can just hive off public spaces for people to live on, then there is no way the homeless are getting first pick. I know people who had to leave a major city due to housing costs and move to the country. If the topic of debate is repurposing public land for longer-term dwellings, they should get priority access to it over these homeless people.
mikem170 5y ago
Maybe we need to dedicate lots where self-policing groups of homeless people can put their temporary shelters, provide them with a porta potty, somewhere near a bus stop so they can get to work. This would be such a boon for so many struggling people.