Philadelphia encampment activists hashing out potential deal with city for houses

[Disir]

They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.

Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.

These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.

There is that. Even tiny homes would work. Still have to have the land and utilities. So, if they took the land that has the houses on it they would need to go ahead and demolish them and then the additional cost of the tiny home.

To which the poor people would wreck in as little as one generation.
This has all been done before. And the result was $millions of taxpayer spent, and the eventual demolition of buildings that should have lasted for generations. There are examples of it in nearly every major northern city.
It is all a massive waste of money... over and over and over. But it gets politicians elected, and people feel good about themselves in how awesome they are.

Do they wreck it because of how much money they don't make?

We have a loss of jobs due to the shut downs. We will have a whole lot more homeless. You don't get to just make them invisible or pretend they aren't human because of stupid crap that was done over COVID-19.

Winter is coming.

You are missing the point.
Right now... right now... if you was to magically make 5,000 homes appear, and each person would also get a $50,000 debit card. At the end of a year... all the money would be gone, and most of the 5000 homes would be trashed.
It is a simple fact.

I'm a social worker. People are homeless for a variety of reasons. I have people that are intellectually disabled with significant substance abuse issues. I have people that have significant mental health issues. I have people that are one step away from becoming homeless now because they work as waitresses etc. in restaurants. Some of those people are in their late fifties and can't start over as easy as that. Some are felons and their past charges prohibit them from moving forward. Some people are just lazy and it irritates the hell out of me. I know for a fact that there are people that I can lay out everything that you need to be successful and they will not do it. So, it's not that I don't see the failed programs or the failed people. I absolutely do. I just don't think that is all there is and I don't believe anyone knows until they get in there and get their hands dirty.

It isn't whether you want to get your hands dirty, it is whether you are doing any good. And in fact, creating more harm than good. Many of these people the worse thing you can do is give them something of value. They will only sell it to get more drugs/alcohol.
At the same time, proven literally 1,000s of times over and over - give them shelter and they will destroy it.
I am not religious, but the Bible is filled with truisms. And one of those is "God helps those that help themselves". I am quite willing to donate money and time to people who need help, and are willing to make the effort to get back to becoming a productive person. I have no interest to give either to people who will take that help and either do nothing, or will take whatever they were given to get more alcohol and drugs.
There are people, MANY, you simply cannot help.

You won't know if you are doing any good until you get your hands dirty.

Let's call it enabling which is doing more harm than good. Do some programs enable? Yes. Generational poverty in some areas is very real.

 

[Picaro]

In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.

Where can I read more about that?

A history of New York City, Gotham, by Edwin Burroughs and Mike Wallace is a book I personally own that discusses it, and I've read other histories that mention it in passing in various places over the years, including the small town South, England, and Germany,; I don't remember the latter specifically, though, sorry; it's just one of those little factoids that comes from reading a lot over the years on economic history and the like. I can find their sources in the above book if you like, but it will take a while, as I have to dig it out and go through the footnotes and bibliography, the latter is quite large since it is a very large book, some 800+ pages.

https://www.amazon.com/Gotham-History-York-City-1898/dp/0195140494&tag=ff0d01-20

Mike Wallace (historian) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see the second book is also out now. I saw a Kindle version for around $14 somewhere, well worth that price, for sure, sinc eit covers a lot of general national 'Americana' history as well, no surprise given NYC's major importance to the country, it's economy, and political importance, though the organization of the book is a little scattered re topics being spread around in several chapters.

 

[Disir]

In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.

Where can I read more about that?

A history of New York City, Gotham, by Edwin Burroughs and Mike Wallace is a book I personally own that discusses it, and I've read other histories that mention it in passing in various places over the years, including the small town South, England, and Germany,; I don't remember the latter specifically, though, sorry; it's just one of those little factoids that comes from reading a lot over the years on economic history and the like. I can find their sources in the above book if you like, but it will take a while, as I have to dig it out and go through the footnotes and bibliography, the latter is quite large since it is a very large book, some 800+ pages.

Robot Check

Mike Wallace (historian) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see the second book is also out now. I saw a Kindle version for around $14 somewhere, well worth that price, for sure, sinc eit covers a lot of general national 'Americana' history as well, no surprise given NYC's major importance to the country, it's economy, and political importance, though the organization of the book is a little scattered re topics being spread around in several chapters.

I'm gonna buy that book. I have a shelf dedicated to New York history. Thanks!

 

[Picaro]

In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.

Where can I read more about that?

A history of New York City, Gotham, by Edwin Burroughs and Mike Wallace is a book I personally own that discusses it, and I've read other histories that mention it in passing in various places over the years, including the small town South, England, and Germany,; I don't remember the latter specifically, though, sorry; it's just one of those little factoids that comes from reading a lot over the years on economic history and the like. I can find their sources in the above book if you like, but it will take a while, as I have to dig it out and go through the footnotes and bibliography, the latter is quite large since it is a very large book, some 800+ pages.

Robot Check

Mike Wallace (historian) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see the second book is also out now. I saw a Kindle version for around $14 somewhere, well worth that price, for sure, sinc eit covers a lot of general national 'Americana' history as well, no surprise given NYC's major importance to the country, it's economy, and political importance, though the organization of the book is a little scattered re topics being spread around in several chapters.

I'm gonna buy that book. I have a shelf dedicated to New York history. Thanks!

Indeed. You're never going to find a lot of stuff on web pages, so books are still king re details, and they don't use batteries or electricity.

 

[Picaro]

As for the Tiny House movement, it's a thing whose time has come, and city govts. need to allow zoning for them in accessable parts of the city near where most people work; overbuilding luxury condos and apts. for yuppies is a bigger waste of money and land.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.

Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.

These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.

There is that. Even tiny homes would work. Still have to have the land and utilities. So, if they took the land that has the houses on it they would need to go ahead and demolish them and then the additional cost of the tiny home.

To which the poor people would wreck in as little as one generation.
This has all been done before. And the result was $millions of taxpayer spent, and the eventual demolition of buildings that should have lasted for generations. There are examples of it in nearly every major northern city.
It is all a massive waste of money... over and over and over. But it gets politicians elected, and people feel good about themselves in how awesome they are.

Do they wreck it because of how much money they don't make?

We have a loss of jobs due to the shut downs. We will have a whole lot more homeless. You don't get to just make them invisible or pretend they aren't human because of stupid crap that was done over COVID-19.

Winter is coming.

You are missing the point.
Right now... right now... if you was to magically make 5,000 homes appear, and each person would also get a $50,000 debit card. At the end of a year... all the money would be gone, and most of the 5000 homes would be trashed.
It is a simple fact.

I'm a social worker. People are homeless for a variety of reasons. I have people that are intellectually disabled with significant substance abuse issues. I have people that have significant mental health issues. I have people that are one step away from becoming homeless now because they work as waitresses etc. in restaurants. Some of those people are in their late fifties and can't start over as easy as that. Some are felons and their past charges prohibit them from moving forward. Some people are just lazy and it irritates the hell out of me. I know for a fact that there are people that I can lay out everything that you need to be successful and they will not do it. So, it's not that I don't see the failed programs or the failed people. I absolutely do. I just don't think that is all there is and I don't believe anyone knows until they get in there and get their hands dirty.

It isn't whether you want to get your hands dirty, it is whether you are doing any good. And in fact, creating more harm than good. Many of these people the worse thing you can do is give them something of value. They will only sell it to get more drugs/alcohol.
At the same time, proven literally 1,000s of times over and over - give them shelter and they will destroy it.
I am not religious, but the Bible is filled with truisms. And one of those is "God helps those that help themselves". I am quite willing to donate money and time to people who need help, and are willing to make the effort to get back to becoming a productive person. I have no interest to give either to people who will take that help and either do nothing, or will take whatever they were given to get more alcohol and drugs.
There are people, MANY, you simply cannot help.

You won't know if you are doing any good until you get your hands dirty.

Let's call it enabling which is doing more harm than good. Do some programs enable? Yes. Generational poverty in some areas is very real.

Generational poverty that is made possible by years of liberal social programs/ giveaways.
If they didn't have all of the goodies... they wouldn't be able to do nothing.
I have a step sister that is one of them.
3 kids by 3 different males, married twice. Currently living with a boyfriend, who is a friend of her husbands, in her husbands home... which is literally next door to one of her other ex-husbands.
She gets all the goodies given to her, her husband (the friend of the boyfriend she is currently having sex with) who they live with is on disability. I have no idea how, he is perfectly healthy. Her boyfriend is ALSO on disability... and again... I see nothing, he runs around on a moped all day and looks to be able to do anything physical he wants.
So right now, they are living large. Their apartment is section 8, mostly covered by taxpayers... 2 disability checks plus welfare and food stamps and free healthcare.
They all lay around and don't do a fucking thing except try to get money from my mother... all made possible by taxpayer funds.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Giving the homeless somewhere to live has worked in Finland. It is seen as the first step to "normalising" people again.
You need to have a programme behind it but it is almost impossible to get on without an address. And helping people back in to the mainstream is actually cheaper than leaving them to freeze on the streets.

 

[22lcidw]

Giving the homeless somewhere to live has worked in Finland. It is seen as the first step to "normalising" people again.
You need to have a programme behind it but it is almost impossible to get on without an address. And helping people back in to the mainstream is actually cheaper than leaving them to freeze on the streets.

People will have to want the housing. People will have to take care of the housing. People will have to live properly in the housing. People will have to be civil in the housing. Ideas can be good. But people can act like shit at every level and way.

 

[Disir]

They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.

Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.

These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.

There is that. Even tiny homes would work. Still have to have the land and utilities. So, if they took the land that has the houses on it they would need to go ahead and demolish them and then the additional cost of the tiny home.

To which the poor people would wreck in as little as one generation.
This has all been done before. And the result was $millions of taxpayer spent, and the eventual demolition of buildings that should have lasted for generations. There are examples of it in nearly every major northern city.
It is all a massive waste of money... over and over and over. But it gets politicians elected, and people feel good about themselves in how awesome they are.

Do they wreck it because of how much money they don't make?

We have a loss of jobs due to the shut downs. We will have a whole lot more homeless. You don't get to just make them invisible or pretend they aren't human because of stupid crap that was done over COVID-19.

Winter is coming.

You are missing the point.
Right now... right now... if you was to magically make 5,000 homes appear, and each person would also get a $50,000 debit card. At the end of a year... all the money would be gone, and most of the 5000 homes would be trashed.
It is a simple fact.

I'm a social worker. People are homeless for a variety of reasons. I have people that are intellectually disabled with significant substance abuse issues. I have people that have significant mental health issues. I have people that are one step away from becoming homeless now because they work as waitresses etc. in restaurants. Some of those people are in their late fifties and can't start over as easy as that. Some are felons and their past charges prohibit them from moving forward. Some people are just lazy and it irritates the hell out of me. I know for a fact that there are people that I can lay out everything that you need to be successful and they will not do it. So, it's not that I don't see the failed programs or the failed people. I absolutely do. I just don't think that is all there is and I don't believe anyone knows until they get in there and get their hands dirty.

It isn't whether you want to get your hands dirty, it is whether you are doing any good. And in fact, creating more harm than good. Many of these people the worse thing you can do is give them something of value. They will only sell it to get more drugs/alcohol.
At the same time, proven literally 1,000s of times over and over - give them shelter and they will destroy it.
I am not religious, but the Bible is filled with truisms. And one of those is "God helps those that help themselves". I am quite willing to donate money and time to people who need help, and are willing to make the effort to get back to becoming a productive person. I have no interest to give either to people who will take that help and either do nothing, or will take whatever they were given to get more alcohol and drugs.
There are people, MANY, you simply cannot help.

You won't know if you are doing any good until you get your hands dirty.

Let's call it enabling which is doing more harm than good. Do some programs enable? Yes. Generational poverty in some areas is very real.

Generational poverty that is made possible by years of liberal social programs/ giveaways.
If they didn't have all of the goodies... they wouldn't be able to do nothing.
I have a step sister that is one of them.
3 kids by 3 different males, married twice. Currently living with a boyfriend, who is a friend of her husbands, in her husbands home... which is literally next door to one of her other ex-husbands.
She gets all the goodies given to her, her husband (the friend of the boyfriend she is currently having sex with) who they live with is on disability. I have no idea how, he is perfectly healthy. Her boyfriend is ALSO on disability... and again... I see nothing, he runs around on a moped all day and looks to be able to do anything physical he wants.
So right now, they are living large. Their apartment is section 8, mostly covered by taxpayers... 2 disability checks plus welfare and food stamps and free healthcare.
They all lay around and don't do a fucking thing except try to get money from my mother... all made possible by taxpayer funds.

I was going to be the black sheep but my step-sister slid right into that position. Thank god for step-sisters. Really. I see yours has an employment allergy. There is a lot of that.

Everybody thinks that there are a plethora of programs. You have to qualify. They aren't trying to screen you in. They are trying to screen you out. You know who doesn't qualify? Homeless men. Single men. Sometimes single women with no children. After 18 you are on your own.

SSI is difficult to get on. You do not need a physical disability. You can have a mental one.
12.00-Mental Disorders-Adult
People don't wear their IQs tattooed on their forehead. They may be so low functioning they started receiving it as children and it is referred to as "a learning disability". They have to reapply at the age of 18. If no one is around to help them then they stop receiving it. You are looking at about 2 years right off the bat after application and they will deny you. They are going to want an updated medical or updated psychological evaluation. They will then send you out and test you with their own people. They will have people running around in circles trying to navigate that system. If you have a physical disability and a sound mind it's going to be total hell. If you have someone that has limited cognitive ability or schizophrenia it is a nightmare.
It is a nightmare for children with disabilities.

Between you and I, there seems to be a lot more people with intellectual disabilities than people are aware of. What I encounter most frequently looks to be genetic. That is either the nature of the beast and if I had a different type of job I wouldn't see this or this is a conversation that we don't want to have because historically bad shit has happened when we do have them.

TANF is limited to 60 months and is only as good as the local resources. Single women with children. They will help you get your GED and obtain training for a job. However, you have to have child care. That can be a nightmare. They might be able to help you find it but the day care has to have an opening and you will have to pay something. So, you might need some start up assistance from somewhere. You might get enough money to cover the rent in Section 8 housing. When you become employed then you pay more in rent. In my city alone we have over 3,000 waiting list. You can apply to get a voucher for a house. Some landlords love it because it's a guaranteed income.

I haven't heard of any states that do any straight out cash assistance in some twenty years.

The moment that you apply for state aid they want to know who the dad is of the children. This has led to horrific abuses in some states of guys having to pay child support for kids that are not their own.

 

[Disir]

Giving the homeless somewhere to live has worked in Finland. It is seen as the first step to "normalising" people again.
You need to have a programme behind it but it is almost impossible to get on without an address. And helping people back in to the mainstream is actually cheaper than leaving them to freeze on the streets.

Yep. I agree.