4 ms·

there was a homeless woman living in a cocoon of bushes/trees in one of the yards of an apartment building in my neighborhood. she was very tidy, quiet, and had

there was a homeless woman living in a cocoon of bushes/trees in one of the yards of an apartment building in my neighborhood. she was very tidy, quiet, and had a pet cat. friendly but not quite put together, she was nevertheless a normal part of our neighborhood. one day, some contractors for the owner came and kicked her out of her makeshift home, and put a fence up to keep her out. she was then forced onto the sidewalk/parkway area where she was less safe and secure. about a year later, she was found dead there.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
the_only_law 4y ago
> about a year later, she was found dead there. Oh god think of the property values /s
oh_sigh 4y ago
Why didn't you offer to let her sleep in your house?
- techsupporter 4y ago
  I have the assumption you think that this is a witty retort meant to "own the" person you're replying to, but how about this for a genuine answer: Because there are often laws or rules against that sort of thing. Taking in a long-term boarding guest who is unrelated to you is against city ordinance in many smaller jurisdictions, and if someone rents (like many do) their leases often prohibit such arrangements. So now instead of one person looking for housing, you have two or more. (Note that my reply omits all of the other arguments about how individual action for collective problems is very unlikely to solve the problem in a meaningful way and this is why we have societies and governments, and so on.)
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    It's not a gotcha statement. I believe in individual action, even for global problems. And I believe you're a hypocrite if you accuse others of lacking empathy for the problem while both parties external behavior is exactly the same. It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that. You say there are "often" laws against what I proposed, which is having someone sleep in a spare bedroom. What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws? What is the homeless population? Something like 0.1% of Americans. How many Americans have bleeding hearts when thinking about the homeless? I dunno, maybe 5%? So even if 50% of people lived in restrictive housing locations where they couldn't implement it, you'd still only need 4% of the remaining bleeding hearts to take in a single homeless person to solve the problem.
    - techsupporter 4y ago
      > What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws? Well, as with many things in life, it depends on the location. The odds of there being a non-familial occupancy limit are a lot lower in Loving County, Texas than they likely are in Harris County, Texas, simply because more population tends to beget more situations where society has decided we need more rules. While overall percentages are likely low, the percentages in the areas where homelessness is most acute are almost certainly higher. For example, San Francisco's occupancy ordinance says that, in general, the upper limit is two people of occupancy per bedroom. While San Francisco has repealed its rules about non-familial cohabitation, Dallas still has some limits (though they are sparsely enforced). Further, areas where homelessness is most acute also tend to have a higher percentage of people who rent, since the barriers to building any kind of housing make all but the most expensive kind of housing--rental units with long-term ROI built for "luxury"--the only kind that get built. According to media reports in 2021, people who rent make up 65% of San Francisco's households. Same for Seattle, where 50.3% of households rent their dwellings. It is likely the case that not all of these rental agreements have restrictions on who can move in and at what time, I would bet one months' rent that the overwhelming majority do. > It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that. I agree that simply having empathy but not backing with efforts is the most hollow of gestures. However, simply saying "well, why don't they live with you" isn't helpful. For another reason beyond what we've discussed, why is it automatically the case that someone who is unhoused would want to live with a stranger? There are myriad justified complaints about congregate shelters and short-term transient housing. The answer isn't "find roommates for everyone," it's "build housing at the rate and income levels needed to house people." But for the howling NIMBYs of the group, we could probably do this. So would it not be more effective to get many of the BS rules blocking housing out of the way? It's not a short-term fix, but we already know what other short term fixes are that aren't people taking in roommates: buying hotels and converting them, for one; tiny house villages with proper doors and sanitary facilities are another. Not sweeping people from one "unsanctioned" campsite to another with nowhere to go is a third.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway675309 4y ago
  You don't really know anything about his situation, the mental history of the woman or anything else to be able to make what appears to be a very glib and slightly judgmental statement. It's far less risky from a personal standpoint to be able to donate and pursue effective altruism that it is to individually (versus a proper social collective) shoulder the responsibility for an entire human being. And even though this isn't an argument against what you're saying, ask yourself, do you currently shelter a homeless person in your house? Even if you don't know a homeless person, you own a car don't you? Surely you have a moral obligation to go and drive through your city, locate a homeless person and shelter them until they're back on their feet.
searealist 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

the_only_law 4y ago

> about a year later, she was found dead there. Oh god think of the property values /s

oh_sigh 4y ago

Why didn't you offer to let her sleep in your house?

techsupporter 4y ago
I have the assumption you think that this is a witty retort meant to "own the" person you're replying to, but how about this for a genuine answer: Because there are often laws or rules against that sort of thing. Taking in a long-term boarding guest who is unrelated to you is against city ordinance in many smaller jurisdictions, and if someone rents (like many do) their leases often prohibit such arrangements. So now instead of one person looking for housing, you have two or more. (Note that my reply omits all of the other arguments about how individual action for collective problems is very unlikely to solve the problem in a meaningful way and this is why we have societies and governments, and so on.)
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  It's not a gotcha statement. I believe in individual action, even for global problems. And I believe you're a hypocrite if you accuse others of lacking empathy for the problem while both parties external behavior is exactly the same. It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that. You say there are "often" laws against what I proposed, which is having someone sleep in a spare bedroom. What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws? What is the homeless population? Something like 0.1% of Americans. How many Americans have bleeding hearts when thinking about the homeless? I dunno, maybe 5%? So even if 50% of people lived in restrictive housing locations where they couldn't implement it, you'd still only need 4% of the remaining bleeding hearts to take in a single homeless person to solve the problem.
  - techsupporter 4y ago
    > What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws? Well, as with many things in life, it depends on the location. The odds of there being a non-familial occupancy limit are a lot lower in Loving County, Texas than they likely are in Harris County, Texas, simply because more population tends to beget more situations where society has decided we need more rules. While overall percentages are likely low, the percentages in the areas where homelessness is most acute are almost certainly higher. For example, San Francisco's occupancy ordinance says that, in general, the upper limit is two people of occupancy per bedroom. While San Francisco has repealed its rules about non-familial cohabitation, Dallas still has some limits (though they are sparsely enforced). Further, areas where homelessness is most acute also tend to have a higher percentage of people who rent, since the barriers to building any kind of housing make all but the most expensive kind of housing--rental units with long-term ROI built for "luxury"--the only kind that get built. According to media reports in 2021, people who rent make up 65% of San Francisco's households. Same for Seattle, where 50.3% of households rent their dwellings. It is likely the case that not all of these rental agreements have restrictions on who can move in and at what time, I would bet one months' rent that the overwhelming majority do. > It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that. I agree that simply having empathy but not backing with efforts is the most hollow of gestures. However, simply saying "well, why don't they live with you" isn't helpful. For another reason beyond what we've discussed, why is it automatically the case that someone who is unhoused would want to live with a stranger? There are myriad justified complaints about congregate shelters and short-term transient housing. The answer isn't "find roommates for everyone," it's "build housing at the rate and income levels needed to house people." But for the howling NIMBYs of the group, we could probably do this. So would it not be more effective to get many of the BS rules blocking housing out of the way? It's not a short-term fix, but we already know what other short term fixes are that aren't people taking in roommates: buying hotels and converting them, for one; tiny house villages with proper doors and sanitary facilities are another. Not sweeping people from one "unsanctioned" campsite to another with nowhere to go is a third.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway675309 4y ago
You don't really know anything about his situation, the mental history of the woman or anything else to be able to make what appears to be a very glib and slightly judgmental statement. It's far less risky from a personal standpoint to be able to donate and pursue effective altruism that it is to individually (versus a proper social collective) shoulder the responsibility for an entire human being. And even though this isn't an argument against what you're saying, ask yourself, do you currently shelter a homeless person in your house? Even if you don't know a homeless person, you own a car don't you? Surely you have a moral obligation to go and drive through your city, locate a homeless person and shelter them until they're back on their feet.

searealist 4y ago