Support NeoGAF

[Nepenthe]

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.

I actually asked the organizer about this on the car ride over there. There is no indoor plumbing; however the person relieving themselves was how they would continue to do so. These things are not permanent set-ups. They're meant to make sure people have a place to get out of the elements and keep their belongings safe from criminals before moving on to either another permanent shelter, organizing a way to contact family, or however else they planned on moving out and moving on. They're basically stop-gaps.

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

There's homeless people everywhere. Shelters are overcrowded and hotbeds for theft and assault. Everyone says that they don't want these types of simple shelters and housing in their neighborhoods, so the only place for these people to go is on the streets. But no one wants to see that either because no one likes seeing the homeless on the streets. No one likes seeing the homeless anywhere. So what do you do about it? You can't kill 'em or jail 'em all. It's an out of control problem that everyone ping-pongs to other places because people are selfish.

 

[The Llama]

The more I think about this, the more ridiculous I realize it is.

 

[WEGGLES]

I actually asked the organizer about this on the car ride over there. There is no indoor plumbing; however the person relieving themselves was how they would continue to do so. These things are not permanent set-ups. They're meant to make sure people have a place to get out of the elements and keep their belongings safe from criminals before moving on to either another permanent shelter, organizing a way to contact family, or however else they planned on moving out and moving on. They're basically stop-gaps.

So it's not even intended for like... vetted homless people but instead randos are supposed to wander in and out of the neighborhood? No thanks!

 

[Nepenthe]

So it's not even intended for like... vetted homless people but instead randos are supposed to wander in and out of the neighborhood? No thanks!

The people are vetted. Each house is organized with specific clients and individuals per month. Where did you get the idea that random people can wander in?

 

[sullyj]

The people are vetted. Each house is organized with specific clients and individuals per month. Where did you get the idea that random people can wander in?

Yeah, it sounds pretty thorough.

From the faq.

How does The Mad Housers decide who gets a hut?

The Mad Housers tries to not get into the business of judging whether a person is a good person or not. That's not our job.

 

[oneils]

People complained about the noise to build a shed? Ridiculous. Never heard of that. They must have figured out somehow that it was going to be used as an abode and I guess that is their main issue. Kinda sad.

 

[JP_]

So what do you do about it? You can't kill 'em or jail 'em all. It's an out of control problem that everyone ping-pongs to other places because people are selfish.

Unfortunately, jailing them is exactly what many communities resort to. They create ordinances against public sleeping, loitering, panhandling, etc. It costs more to jail people than give them a home, but too often these people would still rather jail them because they don't think they deserve handouts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVxYCTavBi4

 

[Nepenthe]

Yeah, it sounds pretty thorough.

From the faq.

How does The Mad Housers decide who gets a hut?

The Mad Housers tries to not get into the business of judging whether a person is a good person or not. That's not our job.

You could post the whole thing:

The Mad Housers tries to not get into the business of judging whether a person is a good person or not. That's not our job. But it is our concern whether something we build can be expected to help somebody. If huts are going to cause a disruption in a camp, or if the camp looks like it's heading for extinction anyway, we wouldn't be good stewards of our donations by wasting our time, energy, or materials. We try to get to know our clients and potential clients pretty well. It usually doesn't take more than a couple of visits to a site to get a feel for its long-term viability.

Good questions to ask:
How long have you been here? If it's been a while, that's a good sign. Like the best indicator of future wealth is current wealth, the best indicator of a camp's future longevity is its longevity. Similarly, someone who has been part of a camp for a while probably isn't a troublemaker or they would have been asked to leave by their fellow campmates.

Do other folks know you're here? This is quite likely. If the neighbors know and don't mind and if the landowner knows and doesn't mind, then the camp is golden. Same with the cops; they usually won't break up a camp unless there are complaints. Homeless people may be homeless, but they generally aren't dumb. If they have a place to stay, they're generally not going to rock the boat by causing trouble.

Is someone in charge? In a group situation, there's usually a person who's the leader. It's not necessarily an explicit leadership role, where someone is the boss -- sometimes it's simply a respected member of the camp whose opinion is usually listened to. These folks tend to give the ultimate approval on what happens in the camp, and should definitely be consulted.

Unfortunately, jailing them is exactly what many communities resort to.

Well, to be fair, I said jail them all, not jail some of them. xP But yeah, I'm aware of anti-homeless laws and they kinda turn my stomach.

 

[Yaboosh]

You could post the whole thing:

None of that has anything to do with vetting individuals. It has to do with making sure the camp where they are building these shacks isn't just going to be immediately abandoned.

 

[echoshifting]

Yeah, it sounds pretty thorough.

From the faq.

How does The Mad Housers decide who gets a hut?

The Mad Housers tries to not get into the business of judging whether a person is a good person or not. That's not our job.

In fairness it does seem like the faq applies primarily to the building of these structures within established homeless camps. Even the core objectives stated in the faq - to improve these camps, essentially - do not seem to line up with building them in yards in neighborhoods. So this is a separate initiative from what they traditionally do and I imagine everything operates differently. Would you say that's accurate, op?

 

[The Beard]

I actually asked the organizer about this on the car ride over there. There is no indoor plumbing; however the person relieving themselves was how they would continue to do so. These things are not permanent set-ups. They're meant to make sure people have a place to get out of the elements and keep their belongings safe from criminals before moving on to either another permanent shelter, organizing a way to contact family, or however else they planned on moving out and moving on. They're basically stop-gaps.

So, in the middle of the night if they have to take a piss or an enormous shit, they'll just throw on some clothes and run over to the location where they used to take shits?

 

[Nepenthe]

In fairness it does seem like the faq applies primarily to the building of these structures within established homeless camps. Even the core objectives stated in the faq - to improve these camps, essentially - do not seem to line up with building them in yards in neighborhoods. So this is a separate initiative from what they traditionally do and I imagine everything operates differently. Would you say that's accurate, op?

Yes. Again, the organizer said this was the first time that he has had a homeowner allow for the organization to build one on his private property, and subsequently it was the first time he was denied finishing a building. Probably should've made that clearer beforehand.

So, in the middle of the night if they have have to take a piss or an enormous shit, they'll just throw on some clothes and run over to the location where they used to take shits?

Yes. There is no really cheap way to get plumbing inside these things (although he said he's experimenting with different port-a-potty and compost-based designs); but again he says the point is not to make comfortable, permanent housing anyway. It's to give homeless people a roof over their heads and a way to lock their belongings away so they can move on to the next step of their lives, while also putting them in buildings that small, out of the way, and aren't eyesores.

 

[Yaboosh]

Yes. Again, the organizer said this was the first time that he has had a homeowner allow for the organization to build one on his private property, and subsequently it was the first time he was denied finishing a building. Probably should've made that clearer beforehand.

Building a homeless camp in the middle of an affluent suburban neighborhood is the most naive idea i have ever heard.

 

[sullyj]

You could post the whole thing:

Why? It's all ridiculous. Building shacks not safe for humans to sleep in, on property they may or may not own, meant to be hidden and not stick out is all crazy to me. Your heart is in the right place but your not thinking this through. Also the alignment issue with the door might have been it was upside down.

 

[Yaboosh]

Why? It's all ridiculous. Building shacks not safe for humans to sleep in, on property they may or may not own, meant to be hidden and not stick out is all crazy to me. Your heart is in the right place but your not thinking this through. Also the alignment issue with the door might have been it was upside down.

Going into established camps and improving them sightly seems like a fine idea. It skirts legality, but eh.

But establishing a new camp? In a residential neighborhood? Yeah no.

 

[iPorygon]

Once had a lecture from one of the founders of The Mad Housers, and you can tell it was created by a bunch of architecture students trying to find a quick fix to get the homeless off the streets and into something cheap and secure, albeit while working in a legal gray area. Then again they have been doing this since 1987 without major troubles, so maybe they're doing something right.

I think the most important part is that they work with the homeless "client" to find an site, as they explained they usually try to see if there are any people the client knows with large yards before asking random people with unused land, and see if there any modifications to the basic design to fit their needs, something that isn't seen when most designers try to solve the homeless problem.

In fairness it does seem like the faq applies primarily to the building of these structures within established homeless camps. Even the core objectives stated in the faq - to improve these camps, essentially - do not seem to line up with building them in yards in neighborhoods. So this is a separate initiative from what they traditionally do and I imagine everything operates differently. Would you say that's accurate, op?

From what I understood from the lecture, the main initiative of the mad housers are to find a client, find a site where the owner is willing to have the shelter on an unused part of their land, and then put the shelter on the site.

 

[johnsmith]

You probably would have been better off donating the cost of the materials and your time to a homeless shelter than to trying to build illegal housing structures without a permit.

 

[Newt]

I think the homeowners are completely justified here.

 

[sullyj]

Fine if this is some kind of home improvement deal for established homeless encampments, but that's not at all what the op sounded like to me.

 

[Zoe]

Yeah, it really doesn't sound like this project was intended for city neighborhoods.

 

[KingV]

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?

HSA's. I'd be beyond pissed if my neighbor started a squatters camp in his fucking backyard.

 

[quickwhips]

There is a church down the road trying to get tiny houses for the homeless but the neighborhood is pissed about the repercussions to their property value so it's getting shutdown. I understand both sides and don't really care either way as long as church meets all the code requirements. My house is a place to live but I know most look at it as a money maker. The church is not getting proper permits because they are idiots so I see this getting shutdown.

 

[Dryk]

Most of the neighbours could help that guy find a place to stay at any time if they really wanted to.

 

[Jest Chillin]

Letting them live in the existing house gives them right of abode and is legal. This isn't.

The legality wasn't the issue the neighbors were upset about and thus isn't what I was responding to. It's not even something anyone in this thread could accurately assess. It could only be estimated at best.

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.

1) Which means that in either situation, you're making an assumption based on a pre-conceived notion with no factual basis. Namely, you are either trusting or distrusting, blindly.

2) It's improbable he was formerly homeless (at least recently) but crazy or dangerous? Not improbable at all. Affluence does not preclude either of those things.

3) While I personally approve (not that that carries significance but rather just saying I like that) that you acknowledge your own uncertainty in reaction, what I gather from this answer is that you are ok with judging someone because they are homeless but not ok with judging someone who isn't homeless because they are simarly judging someone who is homeless.


I'm not saying that everyone should be expected to espouse views of impeccable morals in all ways at all times. I certainly can't say the same of myself. But given that this is a discussion far removed from the immediacy of being faced with the situation personally in the moment, we in the thread should be able to do a bit more than just say "well shit I would feel the same way." There is room to consider it further and question whether we should feel the same way.

The property owner was attempting to do a small good for another human being. Simply give a little temporary shelter from the weather to a single less fortunate person. I don't think jumping to the conclusion that this act automatically puts others in danger is at all reasonable. Especially considering the amount of homelessness that had come about recently across the country due to circumstances entirely out of the control of those left homeless.

Building a homeless camp in the middle of an affluent suburban neighborhood is the most naive idea i have ever heard.

It was a single shelter for one man. Not a camp.

 

[The Beard]

Most of the neighbours could help that guy find a place to stay at any time if they really wanted to.

Ok?

I'm not sure how you find a homeless man, whom you know absolutely nothing about, a place to stay, other than taking them to a homeless shelter. Most people wouldn't feel comfortable vouching for a homeless stranger.

"Hey aunt Susie, can this homeless man, that I literally just met minutes ago, stay in your guest room for a few weeks, or until he finds something more permanent? K, thanks."

 

[dave is ok]

Most of the neighbours could help that guy find a place to stay at any time if they really wanted to.

How? Could you?

 

[Fuchsdh]

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.

I'd be more concerned with them bringing their drug habits with them. Plenty of people want to help the homeless, they don't want to help them *where they live*. I guess that is NIMBYism, but I'd call "we'll solve the homeless problem by building some shacks" a pretty bad solution, so there you go.

While it gets a bit reductive, I suppose the easy question to ask is why build the shed? Why wouldn't this homeowner let that person sleep in their house? The obvious answer is they don't trust them on some level, so no shit others aren't either.

Ok?

I'm not sure how you find a homeless man, whom you know absolutely nothing about, a place to stay, other than taking them to a homeless shelter. Most people wouldn't feel comfortable vouching for a homeless stranger.

"Hey aunt Susie, can this homeless man, that I literally just met minutes ago, stay in your guest room for a few weeks, or until he finds something more permanent? K, thanks."

I remember a really bizarre letter to an advice column (Slate's Dear Prudence) where the wife was asking the columnist what to do about the homeless person her husband had let into their home.

 

[Biff]

I actually asked the organizer about this on the car ride over there. There is no indoor plumbing; however the person relieving themselves was how they would continue to do so. These things are not permanent set-ups. They're meant to make sure people have a place to get out of the elements and keep their belongings safe from criminals before moving on to either another permanent shelter, organizing a way to contact family, or however else they planned on moving out and moving on. They're basically stop-gaps.

There's homeless people everywhere. Shelters are overcrowded and hotbeds for theft and assault. Everyone says that they don't want these types of simple shelters and housing in their neighborhoods, so the only place for these people to go is on the streets. But no one wants to see that either because no one likes seeing the homeless on the streets. No one likes seeing the homeless anywhere. So what do you do about it? You can't kill 'em or jail 'em all. It's an out of control problem that everyone ping-pongs to other places because people are selfish.

Yes, there's homeless people everywhere... On city sidewalks. You think homeless people just sleep on suburb streets? What?

If I was a homeowner in a quiet suburb neighbourhood, I sure as hell wouldn't want any attempts at installing homeless shelters within my area? I feel like this entire thread is taking crazy pills. You guys are nuts and completely separated from the real world.

Imagine taking out a mortgage, buying a home, starting a family, kids first day at school and... Oh there's Crazy Bill taking a dump against our fence again. Haha, Good Ole Crazy Bill! Gotta love him!

Like...... Am I living in a different world? This thread is bonkers.

 

[Terrifyer]

Guys like....where do you think shelters get built anyway? I get having specific issues with this particular shed solution, but a lot of what's in this thread are the exact same arguments used to oppose properly zoned shelters and halfway houses. It's NIMBYism and it's gross.

 

[KingV]

Yes, there's homeless people everywhere... On city sidewalks. You think homeless people just sleep on suburb streets? What?

If I was a homeowner in a quiet suburb neighbourhood, I sure as hell wouldn't want any attempts at installing homeless shelters within my area? I feel like this entire thread is taking crazy pills. You guys are nuts and completely separated from the real world.

Imagine taking out a mortgage, buying a home, starting a family, kids first day at school and... Oh there's Crazy Bill taking a dump against our fence again. Haha, Good Ole Crazy Bill! Gotta love him!

Like...... Am I living in a different world? This thread is bonkers.

I think this is an age gap. It's the only way to explain it.

It's awful that there isn't the political will to do something humane with homeless people, however, keeping them in your backyard in a glorified doghouse is only humane by comparison. It's not a very good solution, and it's creating a nuisance.

If this dude is running a legit charity, why doesn't he go buy some cheap as shit land out in the boonies and just started building rows of these sheds?

 

[Nipo]

Yes, there's homeless people everywhere... On city sidewalks. You think homeless people just sleep on suburb streets? What?

If I was a homeowner in a quiet suburb neighbourhood, I sure as hell wouldn't want any attempts at installing homeless shelters within my area? I feel like this entire thread is taking crazy pills. You guys are nuts and completely separated from the real world.

Imagine taking out a mortgage, buying a home, starting a family, kids first day at school and... Oh there's Crazy Bill taking a dump against our fence again. Haha, Good Ole Crazy Bill! Gotta love him!

Like...... Am I living in a different world? This thread is bonkers.

A lot of non homeowners posting. Anything that decreases the value of the most expensive asset you own it is normal to oppose. Homeless people living in a shed next door? Yup that would do it.

 

[The Llama]

Guys like....where do you think shelters get built anyway? I get having specific issues with this particular shed solution, but a lot of what's in this thread are the exact same arguments used to oppose properly zoned shelters and halfway houses. It's NIMBYism and it's gross.

I wasn't aware of any other organizations building homeless shelters without plumbing or any permits/etc. in random suburban backyards...

 

[KingV]

Guys like....where do you think shelters get built anyway? I get having specific issues with this particular shed solution, but a lot of what's in this thread are the exact same arguments used to oppose properly zoned shelters and halfway houses. It's NIMBYism and it's gross.

Halfway houses and properly zoned shelters get built in low cost areas of town, because that's what's economical to do, and the neighbors won't bitch as much about it. Locally, Thry are mostly in semi-industrial neighborhoods, so the shelter is not literally next to family homes.

However, halfway houses and homeless shelters are vetted and supervised to some degree, which gives some kind of sense of security that you're not going to have a schizophrenic homeless man leaving Big Gulps full of urine in your yard and masturbating at the neighborhood park.

These do not.

 

[Jest Chillin]

Yes, there's homeless people everywhere... On city sidewalks. You think homeless people just sleep on suburb streets? What?

If I was a homeowner in a quiet suburb neighbourhood, I sure as hell wouldn't want any attempts at installing homeless shelters within my area? I feel like this entire thread is taking crazy pills. You guys are nuts and completely separated from the real world.

Imagine taking out a mortgage, buying a home, starting a family, kids first day at school and... Oh there's Crazy Bill taking a dump against our fence again. Haha, Good Ole Crazy Bill! Gotta love him!

Like...... Am I living in a different world? This thread is bonkers.

Many suburbs of large cities have a homeless population. The San Fernando Valley has homes north of 1 million dollars in value 1 or 2 short blocks from homeless in tents next to freeways and on the sidewalks in the underpasses. Shopping centers and parks have cars whose windows are blocked by cardboard and cloth where recently homeless sleep.

I saw the same thing in the Monterey Bay area with homes just as or more expensive.

The homeless are not just crazy drug addict alcoholics living in alleys in the downtown areas of major cities.

A lot of non homeowners posting. Anything that decreases the value of the most expensive asset you own it is normal to oppose. Homeless people living in a shed next door? Yup that would do it.

Property values fluctuate regardless. Neighborhoods rise and fall in desirability. One guy temporarily living in a small shelter isn't going to tank your homes value over the 40 year course of your "investment."

 

[Nepenthe]

Yes, there's homeless people everywhere... On city sidewalks. You think homeless people just sleep on suburb streets? What?

Usually not. But this doesn't really have anything to do with what I said or the situation as it played out today. Although, now that he won't have the building to sleep in now, he's probably in that torn-up tent or on the front porch which is...more of an eyesore?

Imagine taking out a mortgage, buying a home, starting a family, kids first day at school and... Oh there's Crazy Bill taking a dump against our fence again. Haha, Good Ole Crazy Bill! Gotta love him!

Do you honestly think homeless people usually shit on a home's fencing in the middle of the day in plain sight instead of either finding secluded areas in the woods or actual public bathrooms? They're not animals.

 

[NervousXtian]

Yeah, call me a NIMBY.. but I wouldn't be cool with my neighbors building sheds to home homeless people in their backyards. Homeless have already trashed enough around Portland that I don't need them trash up my neighbors backyard and bleeding into mine.

Maybe when you grow up and own something you'll understand a bit more.

BTW, has nothing to do with empathy either.

Do you honestly think homeless people usually shit on a home's fencing in the middle of the day in plain sight instead of either finding secluded areas in the woods or actual public bathrooms? They're not animals.

Wanna come to Portland walk the Springwater with me?

 

[timetokill]

This really isn't NIMBYism, it's common sense.

I came into this thread totally ready to be angry about NIMBYs and now I'm disappointed.

 

[Nipo]

Many suburbs of large cities have a homeless population. The San Fernando Valley has homes north of 1 million dollars in value 1 or 2 short blocks from homeless in tents next to freeways and on the sidewalks in the underpasses. Shopping centers and parks have cars whose windows are blocked by cardboard and cloth where recently homeless sleep.

I saw the same thing in the Monterey Bay area with homes just as or more expensive.

The homeless are not just crazy drug addict alcoholics living in alleys in the downtown areas of major cities.



Property values fluctuate regardless. Neighborhoods rise and fall in desirability. One guy temporarily living in a small shelter isn't going to tank your homes value over the 40 year course of your "investment."

Average person stays in their home 5 years before selling. A homeless shelter in the neighborhood signals more could be built and would hurt property values. I would expect almost all neighbors to oppose it.

 

[KingV]

Usually not. But this doesn't really have anything to do with what I said or the situation as it played out today. Although, now that he won't have the building to sleep in now, he's probably in that torn-up tent or on the front porch which is...more of an eyesore?



Do you honestly think homeless people usually shit on a home's fencing in the middle of the day in plain sight instead of either finding secluded areas in the woods or actual public bathrooms? They're not animals.

I have personally looked a homeless man in the eye as he nonchalantly urinated into a big gulp while facing a busy street right outside of my old apartment in Seattle, along a busy street.

 

[echoshifting]

I am a homeowner myself, and I do agree that while this project has the best intentions behind it, it was never going to happen in a neighborhood like this. But perhaps we could tone down the casual slinging around of stereotypes about homeless people? I believe roughly 1 in 4 suffer from severe mental illness, which means 3 in 4 do not. According to the same report, roughly half suffer from substance abuse issues, which means half do not.

There are plenty of homeless people who are completely ordinary people with heartbreaking histories and tragic circumstances at the root of their homelessness, not mental illness or drug use. It would not be impossible to vet a homeless person who could be trusted not to take a dump in strangers' yards like an animal. Yes, even a schizophrenic homeless person. Cool it. Please.

 

[Tripon]

Usually not. But this doesn't really have anything to do with what I said or the situation as it played out today. Although, now that he won't have the building to sleep in now, he's probably in that torn-up tent or on the front porch which is...more of an eyesore?



Do you honestly think homeless people usually shit on a home's fencing in the middle of the day in plain sight instead of either finding secluded areas in the woods or actual public bathrooms? They're not animals.

I just saw a homeless person last Thursday pull down his pants and shit on the side of the building in plain site on a major street across from a public charter school that I work at.

Homeless people aren't animals, but the person i saw last Thursday didn't care that others could see him shitting in plain sight.

I work at a damn school. Nobody should see that shit, especially kids.

 

[Nepenthe]

Wanna come to Portland walk the Springwater with me?

I already live in a major suburban area with a homeless problem. The people who tend to leave the most trash everywhere, the people who tend to leave tires, furniture, televisions, and other large items on the side of the road, the people who tend to gather up the ugliest shit, the people who tend to have actual animals that do shit on my and others' lawns, and in general the people who tend to be the most wasteful, annoying, and outright inconsiderate around where I live, are the people who aren't homeless.

I am a homeowner myself, and I do agree that while this project has the best intentions behind it, it was never going to happen in a neighborhood like this. But perhaps we could tone down the casual slinging around of stereotypes about homeless people? I believe roughly 1 in 4 suffer from severe mental illness, which means 3 in 4 do not. According to the same report, roughly half suffer from substance abuse issues, which means half do not.

There are plenty of homeless people who are completely ordinary people with heartbreaking histories and tragic circumstances at the root of their homelessness, not mental illness or drug use. It would not be impossible to vet a homeless person who could be trusted not to take a dump in strangers' yards like an animal. Yes, even a schizophrenic homeless person. Cool it. Please.

Thank you. I'm happy to debate and waver on my previous beliefs and assumptions about the organization (took a shower and been thinking about ways to put this organization in better legal standing), but people in here are nonetheless being outright cruel to others outside of their circumstances. We talk all the time about the empathy gap in threads concerning social politics, and yet many have no problem throwing that to the wayside when it comes to the homeless and their plight.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Yes, there's homeless people everywhere... On city sidewalks. You think homeless people just sleep on suburb streets? What?

If I was a homeowner in a quiet suburb neighbourhood, I sure as hell wouldn't want any attempts at installing homeless shelters within my area? I feel like this entire thread is taking crazy pills. You guys are nuts and completely separated from the real world.

Imagine taking out a mortgage, buying a home, starting a family, kids first day at school and... Oh there's Crazy Bill taking a dump against our fence again. Haha, Good Ole Crazy Bill! Gotta love him!

Like...... Am I living in a different world? This thread is bonkers.

I live close to a forest.

I agree with you. I don';t want to walk through it and there are random homeless people living there.

Especially since its not this organizations place to judge who is good and who isn't.

Like, come on OP.

 

[Transhuman]

I live close to a forest.

I agree with you. I don';t want to walk through it and there are random homeless people living there.

Especially since its not this organizations place to judge who is good and who isn't.

Like, come on OP.

"I live near a forest that means I own the forest"

 

[Jest Chillin]

Average person stays in their home 5 years before selling. A homeless shelter in the neighborhood signals more could be built and would hurt property values. I would expect almost all neighbors to oppose it.

That has more to do with the repositioning of homes as investment properties than it does with the effect of a single shed that can't even be seen from the street.

Taking on a 30 or 40 year mortgage just to sell in 5 years is tantamount to gambling and I really don't believe that making sure my neighbors can sell for profit trumps a human being having a dry place to sleep for a few weeks.

Are we really going to talk about home values like the House Bubble didn't burst and send everything spiralling down less than 10 years ago? Are we going to act like property values don't rise and fall in value cyclicaly on a much larger scale than what one man living in a shed on one property could ever affect?

 

[Nipo]

the people who tend to leave tires, furniture, televisions, and other large items on the side of the road

That it literally what the city tells you to do here. Leave it on the side of the road call bulk trash and they pick it up in 3-5 days.

 

[The Faceless Master]

can't have the filthy poors in a good neighborhood. why not build more ghettos?

 

[Mikey Jr.]

"I live near a forest that means I own the forest"

K.

 

[outunderthestars]

Yes, there's homeless people everywhere... On city sidewalks. You think homeless people just sleep on suburb streets? What?

If I was a homeowner in a quiet suburb neighbourhood, I sure as hell wouldn't want any attempts at installing homeless shelters within my area? I feel like this entire thread is taking crazy pills. You guys are nuts and completely separated from the real world.

Imagine taking out a mortgage, buying a home, starting a family, kids first day at school and... Oh there's Crazy Bill taking a dump against our fence again. Haha, Good Ole Crazy Bill! Gotta love him!

Like...... Am I living in a different world? This thread is bonkers.

I wouldn't have a problem with a formal shelter/halfway house, and have lived next to one before in Charlotte. That said, I would not be cool with people building sheds for homeless people in backyards and what not. Cities have zoning laws for valid reasons. This is a perfect example of why they exist.

 

[Nipo]

That has more to do with the repositioning of homes as investment properties than it does with the effect of a single shed that can't even be seen from the street.

Taking on a 30 or 40 year mortgage just to sell in 5 years is tantamount to gambling and I really don't believe that making sure my neighbors can sell for profit trumps a human being having a dry place to sleep for a few weeks.

Are we really going to talk about home values like the House Bubble didn't burst and send everything spiralling down less than 10 years ago? Are we going to act like property values down rise and fall in value cyclicaly on a much larger scale than what one man living in a shed on one property could ever affect?

So is your argument that having homeless people living in sheds won't hurt neighbors land value? Of course you don't have to care but you should expect them to call the city and fight you over every possible code or zoning violation.

Depending how close they are to DC in VA. Yea the bubble never burst here.