• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

My Encounter With NIMBYs

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nepenthe

Member
Story time. A friend on Twitter was advertising a volunteer opportunity a week back for The Mad Housers, a non-profit charity in Atlanta that builds small, basic shelters to keep the homeless off the streets and out of the elements. I'm unemployed now so I figured I should do something with my time and went on down at the scheduled meet. I was introduced to the organizer, and jumped in with helping organize tools, putting drinks in the cooler, and loading things onto the truck for transport out to the Virginia Highlands, aka a ritzy neighborhood.

Now the panels that create the walls and ceiling of the shelter are actually pre-assembled at Nick's home. Thus, when we arrive to a site the noise and time spent on building it is kept at a minimum. Hammer the walls together and the roofing down, set the flooring down, pop on the ceiling, and you're basically done. It's an in-and-out job.

Well, a structural issue in the panels and door's alignment set us back just long enough for some white lady behind the fence of the yard we were already preapproved to build on to start a fight. She was yelling over the fencing- difficult to make out details from the ambiance and distance- then left. About ten minutes later, she came to the front of the yard to continue screaming at us. The organizer handled it and we were quiet as previously instructed. Eventually I heard her threaten to call the cops, and within a few minutes one arrived. The cop was cool; he admitted to not wanting to take the call at all because he knew the gist of what we were doing, but did his duty by responding and taking pictures, then left us alone. We figured that was the end of it and continued work.

After about another hour, we'd fixed the structural issues and had it painted. All it needed was the ceiling and inside flooring. We were once interrupted again, this time by two black guys. It was quiet enough now that I could make out the talker's passive-aggressive argument:

"Why can't you do this in your own backyard? Why don't you buy houses instead? Why don't you have these people move in with you? Why don't you do this? Why don't you do that?"

The organizer batted the bullshit away with his own rep sheet and the sheer logic. A man who has such a shelter in his own yard and his home currently occupied by a schizophrenic homeless man was being talked down to as not doing enough. If I was livid over it I could only imagine how he was feeling. Eventually the cops were called again and two cars arrived this time. While they were as understanding as the first there was murmuring about a building permit and whether or not the property owner who had given us the okay had one, or whether or not our building violated any code due to its size.

In the end we were forced to abandon the build, which was apparently a first in the organization's 22-year history. We were allowed to store the roofing and put on the ceiling by topping the home with the panel and covering it with a weighted tarp. After that, we gathered up our tools and bailed.

As we were figuring out rides and regrouping, we apologized profusely to the homeless man, who was there the entire time. But he excused us, saying that the people calling were the real problem. We looked down the street as he complained and saw the lady still ranting at the police- four officers in total now- who could be doing something more valuable with their time, all because she and the other guys didn't want to see or hear or coexist with a small structure for a homeless man being built in their neighborhood.

But that's life; property values trump the needs of the homeless. However, what really boiled my blood was the neighbors' hollow empathy. "We agree with your cause, but..." "I get what you're doing, but..." "I support you, but..." There was always some terrible excuse, some little addendum, that prevented these people from having just a little bit of a conscience and a little bit of empathy for this poor guy, who ironically now has to continue sleeping in a rinkydink tent which is honestly far more of an eyesore.

And just for an example, here's what the final product would've looked like had we finished it:

the-mad-housers-shelter.jpg


It's basically a fuckin' shed. You never would've been able to tell the difference if I told you otherwise.

tl;dr-- I tried to help build a homeless shelter with other volunteers and the rich neighbors told us to go fuck ourselves.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
I read the whole thing but I'm a little unclear on whose property this shed was being built on. Is there a reason this had to be done in a ritzy neighborhood? That seems like an unnecessarily uphill battle. Is this is a rural neighborhood? How will the homeless person get to and from the shelter into town?

Also, just because a person has taken it upon themselves to live with a schizophrenic homeless person (and that is extremely admirable) doesn't mean they can make that decision for other people.

I feel like this is the most literal and extreme example of a NIMBY possible, and I think the vast majority of people would not want a homeless shelter in what is literally someone's backyard. Please set me straight if I'm confused about the shelter location.
 
I read the whole thing but I'm a little unclear on whose property this shed was being built on. Is there a reason this had to be done in a ritzy neighborhood? That seems like an unnecessarily uphill battle. Is this is a rural neighborhood? How will the homeless person get to and from the shelter into town?

Also, just because a person has taken it upon themselves to live with a schizophrenic homeless person (and that is extremely admirable) doesn't mean they can make that decision for other people.

I feel like this is the most literal and extreme example of a NIMBY possible, and I think the vast majority of people would not want a homeless shelter in what is literally someone's backyard. Please set me straight if I'm confused about the shelter location.

They had the okay of the person who actually owned the property. It was that person's neighbors who were causing the issue. As to why it "had to be there", if the person that owns the property says you can, and if you have someone willing to live in the place, then why should you need to look at/for a different location?
 
Surprise, the bourgeoisie are fucking assholes.

Welcome to the world we live in where most people don't give a shit about much of anyone or anything else besides themselves.

I'm sorry you had to go through that OP, but it is a poisonous attitude that more than just the rich have.

Now because of some rich asshole, that homeless person will not have a safer place to stay.

The nerve of some people.
 
They had the okay of the person who actually owned the property. It was that person's neighbors who were causing the issue. As to why it "had to be there", if the person that owns the property says you can, and if you have someone willing to live in the place, then why should you need to look at/for a different location?

Are they living on that property? I'd think there would be coding/zoning regulations to worry about. Both for the property itself and the actual structure.
 
This is something that you'll understand better when you own a place of your own. It seems like a shitty attitude, but we protect what's ours. It's human nature.
 
Are they living on that property? I'd think there would be coding/zoning regulations to worry about. Both for the property itself and the actual structure.

Looking at that image, I'd imagine the zoning issue wouldn't be any different than building a medium sized shed in your backyard, as that is what that basically looks like. It's not like the homeless person is making it his legal place of residence or anything.
 

Nipo

Member
They had the okay of the person who actually owned the property. It was that person's neighbors who were causing the issue. As to why it "had to be there", if the person that owns the property says you can, and if you have someone willing to live in the place, then why should you need to look at/for a different location?

Because zoning regulations would prohibit it in most cities. You can't just construct and have someone live in a backyard structure without a ton of permits and board approvals.
 

Nepenthe

Member
I read the whole thing but I'm a little unclear on whose property this shed was being built on. Is there a reason this had to be done in a ritzy neighborhood? That seems like an unnecessarily uphill battle. Is this is a rural neighborhood? How will the homeless person get to and from the shelter into town?

The shed was being built in a house's fenced-in backyard. The property owner gave permission to the organizer beforehand, otherwise we wouldn't have built there. Why the homeless man couldn't live in the home itself, we don't know, but regardless the actual property owner gave us the go-ahead to build the structure on his land. Also, we were told the structure is small enough (6' x 8') to not come into conflict with permit laws anyway. Again, it's basically a shed.

Also, just because a person has taken it upon themselves to live with a schizophrenic homeless person (and that is extremely admirable) doesn't mean they can make that decision for other people.

The actual property owner made that decision, not the organization.

However, you are ignoring the context of why this was mentioned anyway; the organizer was asked by the second neighbor why he doesn't take in homeless people himself under the assumption that he does not practice what he preaches and is deliberately causing a nuisance. He told him he actually does, and that he is currently living with a homeless man who is schizophrenic.

I feel like this is the most literal and extreme example of a NIMBY possible, and I think the vast majority of people would not want a homeless shelter in what is literally someone's backyard. Please set me straight if I'm confused about the shelter location.

So long as a structure is up to code and kept up, I would honestly think less of someone if they had a problem with such a structure for the purpose of housing someone who is homeless. It's basically a shed. The blueprints are up online for people to make their own, and naturally, they mostly use them as sheds for outdoor and lawn equipment. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference looking at it anyway. And really, why would anyone have an issue with another human being being out of the elements and safe?

"And then two black guys..."

What purpose did that detail serve?

The same purpose as me calling the first neighbor a "white lady;" an extra detail to better illustrate the situation and to prevent GAF from potentially making any assumptions about the neighbors due to their complaints and income. If it bothers you, I'll edit it out.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
They had the okay of the person who actually owned the property. It was that person's neighbors who were causing the issue. As to why it "had to be there", if the person that owns the property says you can, and if you have someone willing to live in the place, then why should you need to look at/for a different location?

Okay, that's making more sense.

Where was the property owner during this event? I'm seeing reference "the organizer" but that person isn't the owner, right?

edit: ^^^ you keep arguing that it's "just a shed" but the objection isn't to the structure itself, it's to a person living there. I know homeless people are unfairly stigmatized but at the same time one of the people in your story suffers from schizophrenia. People don't feel safe around the mentally ill, or the desperate. Of course no one has an issue with "another human being being out of the elements and safe" but that's not the entire picture. A homeless person is also an unfamiliar wild card to have right in or near your own free-standing residence, and fair or not, people are going to have misgivings.

It's morally above and beyond for this person to allow a homeless person stay in a shed in their yard, but they live in a community and their decisions affect other people, too. It would be nice if everyone was unafraid and compassionate, but that's a big ask sometimes.
 
I read the OP twice. Am I confused, or were people getting upset that you were building a shelter for a homeless person in their neighborhood? Is there more to it than that?
 

Nepenthe

Member
Okay, that's making more sense.

Where was the property owner during this event? I'm seeing reference "the organizer" but that person isn't the owner, right?

We don't know where he was. The only person there was the homeless man. Again, this had been worked out beforehand, otherwise it would've been impossible to build there with any kind of legal protection. Presumably the owener just lives somewhere else and keeps the property for renting/renovation purposes.

I read the OP twice. Am I confused, or were people getting upset that you were building a shelter for a homeless person in their neighborhood? Is there more to it than that?

That is literally the issue; they didn't want the shelter on someone else's private property because of the noise and function of it. I did heard a rumor from a volunteer who had a better front-row seat that the lady in particular was pissed off because she wanted to buy the house herself. However, even if that was true, that was no excuse for the two men.
 

Nipo

Member
The shed was being built in a house's fenced-in backyard. The property owner gave permission to the organizer beforehand, otherwise we wouldn't have built there. Why the homeless man couldn't live in the home itself, we don't know, but regardless the actual property owner gave us the go-ahead to build the structure on his land. Also, we were told the structure is small enough (6' x 8') to not come into conflict with permit laws anyway. Again, it's basically a shed.

If someone is staying in it it needs certification of occupancy. There is no way to build a structure on your property that someone will be staying in even part time without government approval in most cities. Extreme rural are as are of course exceptions.
 
As much as I hate HOAs a situation like this shows why I need to live in a neighborhood with one. No way do I want a makeshift homeless shelter next door to me.

I can't believe y'all thought that would fly in Virgina Highlands. What next, off Roswel Road or Ashford Dunwoody.
 

The Llama

Member
Wait, wait, wait...

So this organization basically builds sheds on peoples property (with their permission) for homeless people to live in? That just seems so bizarre to me, tbh. I guess I could understand in a super rural area or something, but it seems so weird to be doing that in an urban area. I'm shocked there aren't any zoning issues, or requirements to get a certificate of occupancy, or... anything, really.
 

JP_

Banned
Here in Dallas, a bunch of NIMBYs were trying to get an established homeless shelter removed from the downtown area.

Btw, they get pissed when you call them NIMBYs -- it's like calling a racist a racist.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
We don't know where he was. The only person there was the homeless man. Again, this had been worked out beforehand, otherwise it would've been impossible to build there with any kind of legal protection. Presumably the owener just lives somewhere else and keeps the property for renting/renovation purposes.

You say "worked out beforehand" but did the owner broach the subject with his neighbors? If I had a landowner next door who didn't even live there volunteering to allow a homeless person to live there unsupervised, I would be a bit leery.

That is literally the issue; they didn't want the shelter on someone else's private property because of the noise and function of it. I did heard a rumor from a volunteer who had a better front-row seat that the lady in particular was pissed off because she wanted to buy the house herself. However, even if that was true, that was no excuse for the two men.

Maybe she had an ulterior motive, but you have to understand that even without that motive a person would have plenty of reason to be unhappy with their neighbor's decision.
 

Zoe

Member
If someone is staying in it it needs certification of occupancy. There is no way to build a structure on your property that someone will be staying in even part time without government approval in most cities. Extreme rural are as are of course exceptions.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if this would fly in most jurisdictions, mostly due to the living conditions of the "shed".
 

JP_

Banned
You say "worked out beforehand" but did the owner broach the subject with his neighbors? If I had a landowner next door who didn't even live there volunteering to allow a homeless person to live there unsupervised, I would be a bit leery.

Maybe she had an ulterior motive, but you have to understand that even without that motive a person would have plenty of reason to be unhappy with their neighbor's decision.

It's sad that sentiments like this keep people sleeping on the street.
 

FACE

Banned
People that paid a lot to live in a nice place don't want to have a homeless person on their neighborhood? No shit!
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
You sound like a good person but reading the faq I am seeing some red flags.

http://madhousers.org/faq#qtoc47641059


Do you get permission to build at a site?
When we can.The issue of land ownership is very delicate.

Yeah ya think?
It seems like they build 'camps' of these little houses on properties. I don't think it's NIMBYism to not want droves of homeless people (some schizophrenic) living in the woods behind your house.
 
You say "worked out beforehand" but did the owner broach the subject with his neighbors? If I had a landowner next door who didn't even live there volunteering to allow a homeless person to live there unsupervised, I would be a bit leery.



Maybe she had an ulterior motive, but you have to understand that even without that motive a person would have plenty of reason to be unhappy with their neighbor's decision.

What's the difference between a neighboring landowner doing this vs letting the man stay in the existing house?

How do you know the new neighbor isn't formerly homeless? How do you know they're not violent/crazy/drug addicts/etc...

You don't. It's not your land, it's not your business unless/until the person on that land infringes on your rights.

You sound like a good person but reading the faq I am seeing some red flags.

http://madhousers.org/faq#qtoc47641059


Do you get permission to build at a site?
When we can.The issue of land ownership is very delicate.

Yeah ya think?

This just reads to me like they're openly admitting to occasionally building in unused land where homeless tend to congregate regardless. Not that they're erecting these structures on peoples front lawns without permission.
 

The Beard

Member
As much as I hate HOAs a situation like this shows why I need to live in a neighborhood with one. No way do I want a makeshift homeless shelter next door to me.

I can't believe y'all thought that would fly in Virgina Highlands. What next, off Roswel Road or Ashford Dunwoody.

I can't disagree. The majority of homeless people are either mentally ill, alcoholics, drug addicts, or all 3. I can't say I'd be excited if my next door neighbor decided he wanted to turn his property into a homeless camp.

These people need a lot of help, it's not as simple as putting a tiny roof over their head and all their problems magically melt away.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
It's sad that sentiments like this keep people sleeping on the street.

Yeah I'm sorry that people sort themselves into economic strata. That's not something sentiment is going to change. Nobody with means is going to voluntarily live in a way that exposes them to way more risk than they need to assume. Rich people aren't going to live in slums to earn moral points nor are they going to invite elements of slums into their rich neighborhoods.

Consider for a moment whether this particular approach to fighting homelessness is scalable. Are you going to get more homeless people off the street by allocating them one by one to sheds in the backyards of volunteers or would it be better to put resources toward efficient communal shelters located in more convenient place, like city centers? I want homeless people to have shelter and food and prospects for upward mobility. Putting them in suburban, upscale backyards doesn't sound like the easiest way to do that.
 

waxer

Member
Just homeless and mental heath are two very different issues. I have had to deal with neighbours annoyed at people with mental diasabilities at work. They just live in houses but that language,nudity, yelling and violent behaviour is understandably worrying to neighbours.

Even though i work in the industry and understand clients sittuation there aint no way my family would be living next door to places where i work. Id complain as well.

Even in that case i assume even if the homeless person didnt have any issues another that did may come later?
 
Does what you built meet any sort of code? Does the organization have liability insurance for if/when this structure held together by some hammered nails falls apart under a heavy wind and crushes the occupant(s)?

Is the property even zoned for that?

And your dismissal of property value concerns is idiotic - property is an investment for most people, and homes are a long-term investment people are paying monthly on. Their concerns are as valid as yours.
 

Nipo

Member
What's the difference between a neighboring landowner doing this vs letting the man stay in the existing house?

How do you know the new neighbor isn't formerly homeless? How do you know they're not violent/crazy/drug addicts/etc...

You don't. It's not your land, it's not your business unless/until the person on that land infringes on your rights.

Letting them live in the existing house gives them right of abode and is legal. This isn't.
 
Looking at that image, I'd imagine the zoning issue wouldn't be any different than building a medium sized shed in your backyard, as that is what that basically looks like. It's not like the homeless person is making it his legal place of residence or anything.

I think there is a pretty big difference between building a storage shed and a unit meant for human living - even if on a temporary basis.
 

Risible

Member
I agree that we have to deal with the homeless problem.

I do not agree that someone complaining about a shed with no plumbing is NIMBY-ism. I wouldn't want that anywhere near me either.

The person living in it might be cool, or they might be someone with severe mental issues who is pissing and shitting near my yard.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
What's the difference between a neighboring landowner doing this vs letting the man stay in the existing house?

How do you know the new neighbor isn't formerly homeless? How do you know they're not violent/crazy/drug addicts/etc...

You don't. It's not your land, it's not your business unless/until the person on that land infringes on your rights.

1) The difference is that if the landowner lets the man stay in the existing house, I will infer a degree of trust between the homeless person and landowner that lessens my concern about the new tenant.

2) I don't know the neighbor isn't formerly homeless, but if I'm in a rich neighborhood, it's improbable that he was homeless or crazy or dangerous. It's not impossible, of course, but given little information, I can only make assumptions based on probabilities.

3) It's not my business legally, I agree. I will still have thoughts and emotions about it. I don't even know if I'd react the same way as the neighbors described in the OP. I'm not a rich person. But I'm not going to judge people too harshly for being uncomfortable with it because I don't know how I would react in the same situation.
 

JP_

Banned
Yeah I'm sorry that people sort themselves into economic strata. That's not something sentiment is going to change. Nobody with means is going to voluntarily live in a way that exposes them to way more risk than they need to assume. Rich people aren't going to live in slums to earn moral points nor are they going to invite elements of slums into their rich neighborhoods.

Consider for a moment whether this particular approach to fighting homelessness is scalable. Are you going to get more homeless people off the street by allocating them one by one to sheds in the backyards of volunteers or would it be better to put resources toward efficient communal shelters located in more convenient place, like city centers? I want homeless people to have shelter and food and prospects for upward mobility. Putting them in suburban, upscale backyards doesn't sound like the easiest way to do that.

Yeah I think city centers are generally the best place for homeless services -- public transit, access to resources, etc. City centers are usually pretty expensive places to live, btw -- not everyone with resources retreats to the suburbs.

But the fact that there's demand for these sheds demonstrates that the homeless population isn't receiving the resources they need, so I look at it as being better than nothing. We're not talking 'backyard shelters vs an ideal homeless resource system' -- we're talking 'backyard shelters vs living on the streets' -- how is them living on the streets better?

NIMBYs gonna NIMBY but I think it's more important to get someone off the street than making sure rich people are comfortable.
 

LordCanti

Member
I'm going to assume this neighborhood had an HOA that would have made this illegal even before building codes or anything like that came into play. I don't think the neighbors are being unreasonable at all.

Sorry about the work being undone though OP. You tried, which is more than most.
 
I believe they put the door on upsidedown. Those are windows lol.

It actually is upside down. And those holes make it even easier for critters to get in. . .

I hadn't even looked at the shed. Does the roof even have a truss system? It looks like it just got dropped on top of the gable walls and nailed on them.
 
It's really weird that in that whole FAQ there does not appear to be one word said about where they go to the bathroom. Which I guess is probably not something you think about when you're just putting these things in homeless camps to give people some shelter. But when you're erecting them in private yards, cut off from the services available in a city center? That's not a small issue. Perhaps I missed it.
 

mollipen

Member
People that paid a lot to live in a nice place don't want to have a homeless person on their neighborhood? No shit!

Seriously. I'm laughing at the idea of that being something people don't understand or that makes those homeowners against the idea assholes.
 

sullyj

Member
In the faq they describe building these things so they are not easily detectable. Yeah, the rich guy is the asshole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom