7 ms·

Homeless Oaklanders were tired of the housing crisis. So they built a village

26 points by prostoalex 5y ago

boxed 5y ago
I just hope the city won't bulldoze everything. That's the standard response to incrementally improving living conditions for the poorest.
throwawaysea 5y ago
As nice as these structures are, and as much as I appreciate the skills it takes to roll up your sleeves and build something like this, ultimately it is an illegal annexation of public land that belongs to the taxpayers and has other intended uses (even if that use is just greenspace or empty land). The act of building on this land is a crime, and should not be allowed. The West Coast cities need to enforce the law and protect the interests of actual residents, who legally reside in those cities and pay their fair share of taxes. As for the vagrants in these encampments - my experience has been that most are not locals, despite what surveys say, because the surveys always rely on volunteered answers about origins, rather than proven identity. Regardless, everyone must show personal responsibility and people need to realize they are not entitled to a life in the most attractive and expensive locations on the planet. There are TONS of open jobs across the country and lots of places that are great to live in and affordable. They don't have the same 'brand' as the Bay Area or other West Coast locations, but as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. What I do think we can band together to provide is a service that matches those in need with jobs in other locations, along with bridge funding to move locations and get settled in.
- websites420 5y ago
  >ultimately it is an illegal annexation of public land that belongs to the taxpayers and has other intended uses (even if that use is just greenspace or empty land). This is exactly how I feel seeing the homeless camps in Austin. Primarily, the first question I had was: what happens when one homeless person wants to spot of another? Neither has a legal right to it; are we not encouraging interpersonal violence by refusing to enforce the property laws that separate us from the state of nature? >my experience has been that most are not locals, despite what surveys say, because the surveys always rely on volunteered answers about origins, rather than proven identity Right. Why would anyone tell a volunteer they're from out of town? Seems like the first rule of being homeless: get a story that appeals to people. "Born here and down on my luck" is much more compelling than "Where I came from is worse than this place so I hopped a ride here." Basically, we can spend all the money in the world and build all the housing that people need, but the personal liberty that this country espouses -- personal liberty I agree with! -- means that no one is obligated to take it. There is already a myriad of excuses I hear in these threads for why the homeless don't go to the shelters, participate in the programs, etc. "They don't allow my dog." "They would make be get sober", etc. Until we accept that there is a significant population of unhoused that prefer it that way, and then decided what we want to do about that, all the little villages and things won't scratch the surface of the problem.
  - randompwd 5y ago
    Simple solution is enforce the law.Remove the housing and charge those who build or assist in building on public land with a criminal offense - same as would happen to anyone else who illegally builds on public lands. It's past ridiculous that this behaviour is applauded and endorsed by elected officials.
    - websites420 5y ago
      There are no simple solutions here. I do believe the homeless ought to be assigned housing by making California’s Project Room Key permanent and national. If you can prove some connection to the location where you’re sleeping rough, you get first crack at local housing. Otherwise it’s back to where you have that connection — could even be where you were born. These motels will be slums. There will be prostitutes, and drug dealers, and crime. But it will also be a central location for service outreach without the prerequisites of other places.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >These motels will be slums. There will be prostitutes, and drug dealers, and crime. sounds like a refugee camp to me.
      - hedora 5y ago
        There are simple solutions here, but they’re not politically tenable: - Roll back the changes that gutted mental health care in California. - Modify the planning process, codes and zoning so people can build houses.
    - beardedetim 5y ago
      What is the reasoning for giving them a criminal offense? Not “because they broke the law” but like, what are we hoping to get out of sending them to jail/giving them a fine? That they choose to stop being homeless? That being in jail makes them not homeless anymore? I think it’s a fools errand to jail homeless people. It seems like a waste of money to me but I don’t have a better solution or idea on how to spend my tax dollars so am really interested in hearing more on the positive side of jailing them.
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  "annexation of public land that belongs to the taxpayers" It's worth considering why people are more sympathetic to: A) Restaurant owners who, under San Francisco's 'Shared Spaces' scheme, have been given the right to construct outdoor dining spaces on public land (i) without any payment for use of the land, and (ii) with the right to exclude/eject members of the public from that land, unless they pay the restaurant. Than: B) People who would otherwise be homeless living on public land.
  - Google234 5y ago
    Well A is mostly because the government has disallowed them to use the indoor space thst they own. Seems like a fair trade to meZ
    - rahimnathwani 5y ago
      If that were the reason, then: 1. The scheme would be open to all affected businesses (including offices) and not just restaurants. 2. There SF govt would not be trying to make the scheme permanent.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Because the former is sanctioned and the latter isn't. Being sanctioned means it went through an approval process where the residents have representation and can reject the proposal. If restaurants decided to unilaterally annex roads for their own private use they'd get in trouble as well.
  - hedora 5y ago
    This doesn’t have much to do with who owns the land. California won’t allow affordable housing to be built anywhere in the Bay Area. The result is that you get buildings that somehow cost 4-5x more to build than they would elsewhere (even adjusting for seismic costs) and you get dangerous squatter villages, but you get nothing in between.
- didibus 5y ago
  > my experience has been that most are not locals, despite what surveys say I'm curious what that matters for? States don't have borders no? So it's not like being born in a particular state grants you anything special, I don't think you can deport people from one state to another on grounds of not being born in the state no? > What I do think we can band together to provide is a service that matches those in need with jobs in other locations, along with bridge funding to move locations and get settled in That's a good idea, but are there employees willing to participate in such program? And are all homeless really able too? Lots of them have mental illness or addiction issues that might prevent them from keeping a job or make them unattractive to employers. > The West Coast cities need to enforce the law and protect the interests of actual residents, who legally reside in those cities and pay their fair share of taxes I think this is where the "ideal" breaks appart. Enforcing the law in those case seems to be a dead end. It costs 80k per inmate on average to jail someone in California, which seems like a stupidly high cost solution, and jail doesn't seem to work to deter homelessness. So what else can be done? And that's the million dollar question right here, and nobody has found the sure fire solution yet.
paxys 5y ago
Stuff like this is good while it lasts, then it quickly becomes apparent why modern cities exist like they do today. Sanitation, housing built to code, fire protection, permits, inspections, real construction materials, garbage disposal and pickup, official mail delivery, tenant protections etc. aren't all done just for kicks. Solutions like this should be seen as a complete failure of the system rather than celebrated. In any other country this would be called a slum.
- musicale 5y ago
  Squatter settlements are probably the only way to get around zoning restrictions in the bay area.
  - gsjwnwidm 5y ago
    Or, you know, not living in the most expensive place in the US if you can't afford it?
- vmception 5y ago
  All the potential perils you described do occur in Oakland https://www.sfchronicle.com/oakland-fire/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/oakland-fire/
- scotty79 5y ago
  It's a common trope for stories from USA to sell something that's clearly evidence of severe disfunction of the system as something uplifting, down to earth and heartfelt. Like a story about a kid working to earn money to pay off lunch debt of even younger kids.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Don't act llke there aren't slums in EU or elsewhere. Some major cities in Europe hide the homeless for the night - great, but doesn't really help them get back to normal life. There are homeless people sleeping under bridges in Germany too, they're just expelled from the cities. Prague is full of homeless people - I see 5 from my window right now, and there are several slums too. Visit rural Slovakia or Romania and you'll see that the EU is just full of propaganda. I wouldn't be surprised if the relative number of homeless people was actually larger than in the USA, the EU just doesn't bother to count properly and allocates a very minor amount of money to hide the problem.
proc0 5y ago
If this is NOT taken down by local authorities, I will surprised, but also I will be confused why it is being allowed now, after decades of having this problem. This is the most straight forward way to solve the problem, by allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise, and just offering basic, cheap shelter. Oakland had this problem for decades and NOW they allow this? The lack of problem solving skills by the government there is incredible.
- gruez 5y ago
  >This is the most straight forward way to solve the problem, by allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise except, that the big open spaces were used for something (eg. parks/greenspace/recreation), so letting homeless people camp there denies other residents from using that space for those purposes. it also ignores the externalities associated with such encampments. finally, it's not really a solution and more of a band-aid. the amount of parks we have is finite, so eventually we're going to run out of space.
  - proc0 5y ago
    I agree, but in these cities it's such a problem that you can't use these spaces anyway because people set up their tents there. I also agree it's a band-aid, but it's a much better band-aid than the existing attempts, as far as my understanding. And to be clear, had the local gov. considered this, they could have provided the solution themselves, which would have made it safer and better, and in theory, faster.
- musicale 5y ago
  > If this is NOT taken down by local authorities, I will surprised > allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise, and just offering basic, cheap shelter It has to be something that isn't a huge fire or safety hazard, to avoid another Ghost Ship warehouse fire.
  - proc0 5y ago
    Agreed, but solutions to that also exist. In my opinion, it's solving for shelter, hygiene, and water, in a safe and scaleable way. This provides reliable temporary solution for people, to then get their options sorted out, and eventually I think people would try and get out of that themselves, with exception of the ones that really need personalized assistance.
nodesocket 5y ago
Wow, this article seems to glorify this behavior "beautiful structures". Except this is not their land. It belongs to the city and thus associated taxpayers. What gives them the right to squat on land? They know Oakland and furthermore the bay area won't do anything about it, so they continue. This is just like when I used to live in downtown San Francisco and people would just setup piles of rubble right in the middle of the sidewalk (exposed needles came along with it) on downtown streets. Police and city officials won't do anything about it. I eventually decided I'd had enough, and left San Francisco and the state of California three years ago.
browningstreet 5y ago
So many responses here are focused on just the acts of these people building the village. They're making a sane choice in an insane environment and there are selfless elements in their build. Technically it's illegal, certainly. But the "insane environment" needs more attention and things like this wouldn't get built.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Hoovervilles? We haven't even started the 20's yet and we're repeating the past.

26 points by prostoalex 5y ago

I just hope the city won't bulldoze everything. That's the standard response to incrementally improving living conditions for the poorest.

throwawaysea 5y ago

As nice as these structures are, and as much as I appreciate the skills it takes to roll up your sleeves and build something like this, ultimately it is an illegal annexation of public land that belongs to the taxpayers and has other intended uses (even if that use is just greenspace or empty land). The act of building on this land is a crime, and should not be allowed. The West Coast cities need to enforce the law and protect the interests of actual residents, who legally reside in those cities and pay their fair share of taxes. As for the vagrants in these encampments - my experience has been that most are not locals, despite what surveys say, because the surveys always rely on volunteered answers about origins, rather than proven identity. Regardless, everyone must show personal responsibility and people need to realize they are not entitled to a life in the most attractive and expensive locations on the planet. There are TONS of open jobs across the country and lots of places that are great to live in and affordable. They don't have the same 'brand' as the Bay Area or other West Coast locations, but as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. What I do think we can band together to provide is a service that matches those in need with jobs in other locations, along with bridge funding to move locations and get settled in.

websites420 5y ago
>ultimately it is an illegal annexation of public land that belongs to the taxpayers and has other intended uses (even if that use is just greenspace or empty land). This is exactly how I feel seeing the homeless camps in Austin. Primarily, the first question I had was: what happens when one homeless person wants to spot of another? Neither has a legal right to it; are we not encouraging interpersonal violence by refusing to enforce the property laws that separate us from the state of nature? >my experience has been that most are not locals, despite what surveys say, because the surveys always rely on volunteered answers about origins, rather than proven identity Right. Why would anyone tell a volunteer they're from out of town? Seems like the first rule of being homeless: get a story that appeals to people. "Born here and down on my luck" is much more compelling than "Where I came from is worse than this place so I hopped a ride here." Basically, we can spend all the money in the world and build all the housing that people need, but the personal liberty that this country espouses -- personal liberty I agree with! -- means that no one is obligated to take it. There is already a myriad of excuses I hear in these threads for why the homeless don't go to the shelters, participate in the programs, etc. "They don't allow my dog." "They would make be get sober", etc. Until we accept that there is a significant population of unhoused that prefer it that way, and then decided what we want to do about that, all the little villages and things won't scratch the surface of the problem.
- randompwd 5y ago
  Simple solution is enforce the law.Remove the housing and charge those who build or assist in building on public land with a criminal offense - same as would happen to anyone else who illegally builds on public lands. It's past ridiculous that this behaviour is applauded and endorsed by elected officials.
  - websites420 5y ago
    There are no simple solutions here. I do believe the homeless ought to be assigned housing by making California’s Project Room Key permanent and national. If you can prove some connection to the location where you’re sleeping rough, you get first crack at local housing. Otherwise it’s back to where you have that connection — could even be where you were born. These motels will be slums. There will be prostitutes, and drug dealers, and crime. But it will also be a central location for service outreach without the prerequisites of other places.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >These motels will be slums. There will be prostitutes, and drug dealers, and crime. sounds like a refugee camp to me.
    - hedora 5y ago
      There are simple solutions here, but they’re not politically tenable: - Roll back the changes that gutted mental health care in California. - Modify the planning process, codes and zoning so people can build houses.
  - beardedetim 5y ago
    What is the reasoning for giving them a criminal offense? Not “because they broke the law” but like, what are we hoping to get out of sending them to jail/giving them a fine? That they choose to stop being homeless? That being in jail makes them not homeless anymore? I think it’s a fools errand to jail homeless people. It seems like a waste of money to me but I don’t have a better solution or idea on how to spend my tax dollars so am really interested in hearing more on the positive side of jailing them.
rahimnathwani 5y ago
"annexation of public land that belongs to the taxpayers" It's worth considering why people are more sympathetic to: A) Restaurant owners who, under San Francisco's 'Shared Spaces' scheme, have been given the right to construct outdoor dining spaces on public land (i) without any payment for use of the land, and (ii) with the right to exclude/eject members of the public from that land, unless they pay the restaurant. Than: B) People who would otherwise be homeless living on public land.
- Google234 5y ago
  Well A is mostly because the government has disallowed them to use the indoor space thst they own. Seems like a fair trade to meZ
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    If that were the reason, then: 1. The scheme would be open to all affected businesses (including offices) and not just restaurants. 2. There SF govt would not be trying to make the scheme permanent.
- gruez 5y ago
  Because the former is sanctioned and the latter isn't. Being sanctioned means it went through an approval process where the residents have representation and can reject the proposal. If restaurants decided to unilaterally annex roads for their own private use they'd get in trouble as well.
- hedora 5y ago
  This doesn’t have much to do with who owns the land. California won’t allow affordable housing to be built anywhere in the Bay Area. The result is that you get buildings that somehow cost 4-5x more to build than they would elsewhere (even adjusting for seismic costs) and you get dangerous squatter villages, but you get nothing in between.
didibus 5y ago
> my experience has been that most are not locals, despite what surveys say I'm curious what that matters for? States don't have borders no? So it's not like being born in a particular state grants you anything special, I don't think you can deport people from one state to another on grounds of not being born in the state no? > What I do think we can band together to provide is a service that matches those in need with jobs in other locations, along with bridge funding to move locations and get settled in That's a good idea, but are there employees willing to participate in such program? And are all homeless really able too? Lots of them have mental illness or addiction issues that might prevent them from keeping a job or make them unattractive to employers. > The West Coast cities need to enforce the law and protect the interests of actual residents, who legally reside in those cities and pay their fair share of taxes I think this is where the "ideal" breaks appart. Enforcing the law in those case seems to be a dead end. It costs 80k per inmate on average to jail someone in California, which seems like a stupidly high cost solution, and jail doesn't seem to work to deter homelessness. So what else can be done? And that's the million dollar question right here, and nobody has found the sure fire solution yet.

paxys 5y ago

Stuff like this is good while it lasts, then it quickly becomes apparent why modern cities exist like they do today. Sanitation, housing built to code, fire protection, permits, inspections, real construction materials, garbage disposal and pickup, official mail delivery, tenant protections etc. aren't all done just for kicks. Solutions like this should be seen as a complete failure of the system rather than celebrated. In any other country this would be called a slum.

musicale 5y ago
Squatter settlements are probably the only way to get around zoning restrictions in the bay area.
- gsjwnwidm 5y ago
  Or, you know, not living in the most expensive place in the US if you can't afford it?
vmception 5y ago
All the potential perils you described do occur in Oakland https://www.sfchronicle.com/oakland-fire/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/oakland-fire/
scotty79 5y ago
It's a common trope for stories from USA to sell something that's clearly evidence of severe disfunction of the system as something uplifting, down to earth and heartfelt. Like a story about a kid working to earn money to pay off lunch debt of even younger kids.
- emteycz 5y ago
  Don't act llke there aren't slums in EU or elsewhere. Some major cities in Europe hide the homeless for the night - great, but doesn't really help them get back to normal life. There are homeless people sleeping under bridges in Germany too, they're just expelled from the cities. Prague is full of homeless people - I see 5 from my window right now, and there are several slums too. Visit rural Slovakia or Romania and you'll see that the EU is just full of propaganda. I wouldn't be surprised if the relative number of homeless people was actually larger than in the USA, the EU just doesn't bother to count properly and allocates a very minor amount of money to hide the problem.

proc0 5y ago

If this is NOT taken down by local authorities, I will surprised, but also I will be confused why it is being allowed now, after decades of having this problem. This is the most straight forward way to solve the problem, by allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise, and just offering basic, cheap shelter. Oakland had this problem for decades and NOW they allow this? The lack of problem solving skills by the government there is incredible.

gruez 5y ago
>This is the most straight forward way to solve the problem, by allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise except, that the big open spaces were used for something (eg. parks/greenspace/recreation), so letting homeless people camp there denies other residents from using that space for those purposes. it also ignores the externalities associated with such encampments. finally, it's not really a solution and more of a band-aid. the amount of parks we have is finite, so eventually we're going to run out of space.
- proc0 5y ago
  I agree, but in these cities it's such a problem that you can't use these spaces anyway because people set up their tents there. I also agree it's a band-aid, but it's a much better band-aid than the existing attempts, as far as my understanding. And to be clear, had the local gov. considered this, they could have provided the solution themselves, which would have made it safer and better, and in theory, faster.
musicale 5y ago
> If this is NOT taken down by local authorities, I will surprised > allowing people to settle in big open spaces that would be empty otherwise, and just offering basic, cheap shelter It has to be something that isn't a huge fire or safety hazard, to avoid another Ghost Ship warehouse fire.
- proc0 5y ago
  Agreed, but solutions to that also exist. In my opinion, it's solving for shelter, hygiene, and water, in a safe and scaleable way. This provides reliable temporary solution for people, to then get their options sorted out, and eventually I think people would try and get out of that themselves, with exception of the ones that really need personalized assistance.

nodesocket 5y ago

Wow, this article seems to glorify this behavior "beautiful structures". Except this is not their land. It belongs to the city and thus associated taxpayers. What gives them the right to squat on land? They know Oakland and furthermore the bay area won't do anything about it, so they continue. This is just like when I used to live in downtown San Francisco and people would just setup piles of rubble right in the middle of the sidewalk (exposed needles came along with it) on downtown streets. Police and city officials won't do anything about it. I eventually decided I'd had enough, and left San Francisco and the state of California three years ago.

browningstreet 5y ago

So many responses here are focused on just the acts of these people building the village. They're making a sane choice in an insane environment and there are selfless elements in their build. Technically it's illegal, certainly. But the "insane environment" needs more attention and things like this wouldn't get built.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

Hoovervilles? We haven't even started the 20's yet and we're repeating the past.