Support NeoGAF

[Terrifyer]

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

I'm aware of that. That's why I said "properly zoned"... I don't think this shed is a particularly great idea but was commenting on NIMBYism more generally. The point is that these shelters need to be built near somebody, right?

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.

People in low cost neighbourhoods still complain about this stuff too. As property values start rising in an area they often want to kick the shelters out. I also don't see how it's particular moral to say that it's fine to put them in low cost neighbourhoods because the housing values are already lower/people will complain less and to say it's not ok to do the same in a rich neighbourhood because they'll complain more or because their houses are worth more. I get that it's impractical for these organizations to fight wealthy homeowners, but I think this stratification is an ugly side of society.


Edit: I forgot to mention that I think your assumption that homeless people would leave big gulps of urine on your lawn and masturbate in public, or that them possibly being schizophrenic is a huge safety concern speaks volumes as to why we have this problem. If we could get this ridiculous caraciture of homeless and/or the mentally ill out of people's heads it would work wonders.

 

[BriGuy]

Your heart is in the right place, but I really can't get behind this. Like someone else said, your efforts would be better spent donating the time/money to an established homeless shelter (with indoor plumbing!). Your shack solution in residential neighborhoods just seems made to court disaster. Give Habitat for Humanity a shot next time.

 

[Nepenthe]

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

Do you think the actions of people who have little to nothing reside primarily within a moral context or one based upon their existent life situation and meeting their needs?

Your heart is in the right place, but I really can't get behind this. Like someone else said, your efforts would be better spent donating the time/money to an established homeless shelter (with indoor plumbing!). Your shack solution in residential neighborhoods just seems made to court disaster. Give Habitat for Humanity a shot next time.

Fair enough. I do want to find other volunteering opportunities around me anyway. Although understand that this isn't my solution. I got wind of this organization's existence from a friend who's worked for them a few times before, so I said "why not?" and decided to help, and ran into some pissed-off neighbors. Again, this is the first time that's happened in the organization's history (20+ years), so I assume they've been building shelters all this time without any fuss.

 

[KingV]

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

Is the forest zoned for illegal dwellings or squatters camps?

Part of our neighborhood was recently zoned for commercial use. There was a long list of restrictions on what type of businesses could go into that spot. No car washes, gas stations, heavy manufacturing, and a bunch more. I don't own the land. None of my neighbors own the land. But the city council still listens to the people that live there because they want to be reelected. And they want their towns to be nice places to live.

 

[Jest Chillin]

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.

My argument is that making the assumption with zero facts or information that one homeless man living in a shed is going to doom your neighborhood is sensational and unreasonable.

How about talking to the property owner and expressing your concerns and, oh I don't know, finding out some actual details before you ruin someone less fortunate's chance at having a dry place to sleep at night?

 

[KingV]

I'm aware of that. That's why I said "properly zoned"... I don't think this shed is a particularly great idea but was commenting on NIMBYism more generally. The point is that these shelters need to be built near somebody, right?



People in low cost neighbourhoods still complain about this stuff too. As property values start rising in an area they often want to kick the shelters out. I also don't see how it's particular moral to say that it's fine to put them in low cost neighbourhoods because the housing values are already lower/people will complain less and to say it's not ok to do the same in a rich neighbourhood because they'll complain more or because their houses are worth more. I get that it's impractical for these organizations to fight wealthy homeowners, but I think this stratification is an ugly side of society.

It's charity, and makes perfect sense to buy cheap land for shelters because you can build more/bigger shelters and house more people. That's just common sense.

Fwiw, I live in a nice neighborhood and we have halfway house the next neighborhood over. But it's not in a suburb, it neighbors a commercial area (doctors offices and the like).

It's fine.

 

[Nipo]

My argument is that making the assumption with zero facts or information that one homeless man living in a shed is going to doom your neighborhood is sensational and unreasonable.

How about talking to the property owner and expressing your concerns and, oh I don't know, finding out some actual details before you ruin someone less fortunate's chance at having a dry place to sleep at night?

I did property assessment for nearly decade out of college. I can pretty confidently say a structure designed to house homeless will hurt neighbors property values in almost any suburb. I never said "doom" I said lower values, which it likely would. How much depends on the neighborhood. Even a
If it is a 2% drop I'd expect neighbors to fight it.

This type of thing is why we have zoning laws. Any decrease in property values reduces tax revenue for the town and their ability to provide services. Yes the world isn't fair.

 

[outunderthestars]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1836483393248291&id=1504178376478796


https://m.facebook.com/groups/9460668061/

Photos from the build from their Facebook pages.

 

[Terrifyer]

It's charity, and makes perfect sense to buy cheap land for shelters because you can build more/bigger shelters and house more people. That's just common sense.

Fwiw, I live in a nice neighborhood and we have halfway house the next neighborhood over. But it's not in a suburb, it neighbors a commercial area (doctors offices and the like).

It's fine.

It's generally common sense for the charities to work that way, yeah. But not always, as in the cases where they buy into a neighbourhood for cheap and the housing prices start to rise for other reasons. The problem with NIMBYism is the attitude, because the practical reality changes for each different situation. Do you think it's ok for people to vehemently oppose shelters just because they have a lot of money to buy a nice house?

 

[Jest Chillin]

I did property assessment for nearly decade out of college. I can pretty confidently say a structure designed to house homeless will hurt neighbors property values in almost any suburb. I never said "doom" I said lower values, which it likely would. How much depends on the neighborhood. Even a
If it is a 2% drop I'd expect neighbors to fight it.

This type of thing is why we have zoning laws. Any decrease in property values reduces tax revenue for the town and their ability to provide services. Yes the world isn't fair.

I would expect that's why the buildings are designed to look like inconspicuous sheds rather than looking like they are designed to house homeless.

If tax revenue from property values is the main concern then people should be more concerned about homeowners who fall behind in the upkeep of their homes, park their cars on the lawn, or do the myriad of other things that more obviously and drastically affect home values than building a shed.

The neighbors don't care about their property taxes negatively affecting the city, so mentioning that in response is disingenuous.

We all know the world isn't fair. That doesn't mean people should actively continue to to keep that as the status quo.

 

[UncleSporky]

I forgot to mention that I think your assumption that homeless people would leave big gulps of urine on your lawn and masturbate in public, or that them possibly being schizophrenic is a huge safety concern speaks volumes as to why we have this problem. If we could get this ridiculous caraciture of homeless and/or the mentally ill out of people's heads it would work wonders.

Several people in the thread say they actually witnessed this sort of thing happening.

Would it be fair to dismiss it as a ridiculous caricature and build these shelters, with the caveat that the shelters will be demolished or moved at the first sign it's witnessed to be anything more than an untrue stereotype?

 

[turtle553]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1836483393248291&id=1504178376478796


https://m.facebook.com/groups/9460668061/

Photos from the build from their Facebook pages.

From those photos, it is a pretty dense neighborhood. It's definitely understandable why someone doesn't want to look out their back window into a homeless camp.

 

[KingV]

It's generally common sense for the charities to work that way, yeah. But not always, as in the cases where they buy into a neighbourhood for cheap and the housing prices start to rise for other reasons. The problem with NIMBYism is the attitude, because the practical reality changes for each different situation. Do you think it's ok for people to vehemently oppose shelters just because they have a lot of money to buy a nice house?

I suspect that they vehemently oppose the shelter for other reasons than they have nice homes. It's probably more like they don't want to have a bunch of obviously homeless people walking through their neighborhood doing obviously homeless shit like shitting on the sides of buildings. It's up to the shelter to convince people that it will be a good neighbor and deliver on it. If an already established shelter is having problems with its neighborhood, I suspect they are not being an exemplary neighbor in some fashion, because people care enough to complain about it.

Would you want you neighbor to open a nightclub or strip club in their basement? Why not? Just because homeless people, as a group, are deserving of empathy doesn't mean they should escape all scrutiny.

Personally, I think we should have a stronger safety net in general, and not really have such a thing as working homeless, and have better medical services for the mentally ill. Homeless shelters are partially missing the forest for the trees, because they are addressing a symptom of a fucked up system, and not really solving the actual problem.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

OT is basically ideological NIMBYs

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

Grade A condescension right here

 

[outunderthestars]

From those photos, it is a pretty dense neighborhood. It's definitely understandable why someone doesn't want to look out their back window into a homeless camp.

That was my takeaway as well.

 

[Terrifyer]

Several people in the thread say they actually witnessed this sort of thing happening.

Would it be fair to dismiss it as a ridiculous caricature and build these shelters, with the caveat that the shelters will be demolished or moved at the first sign it's witnessed to be anything more than an untrue stereotype?

It's still a ridiculous caricature even if some homeless people do actually behave that way. I don't know if numbers on leaving piss gulps on lawns exist, but for example it's certainly a common belief that those with schizophrenia are super dangerous when the reality is that they are not at all.

It's also worth pointing out that perception plays a huge role in this. I live in a nice neighbourhood and the guy on the corner lets his dog shit on the sidewalk all the time and doesn't clean it up. People aren't going over to his house and yelling at him or calling the city to complain. Yet people are totally willing to do these things when they're inconvenienced by the homeless.

 

[Terrifyer]

It's probably more like they don't want to have a bunch of obviously homeless people walking through their neighborhood doing obviously homeless shit like shitting on the sides of buildings.

So where is it appropriate to have this happen then, poorer neighbourhoods? And why is that ok? Keep in mind we're talking about a real shelter and not the shed idea in the op.

If an already established shelter is having problems with its neighborhood, I suspect they are not being an exemplary neighbor in some fashion, because people care enough to complain about it.

This is absolutely untrue. Property value is a huge motivation for people opposed to these things, and the decline in property value happens no matter how well it's being managed. Also, if you believe that homeless people are always shitting on the sides of buildings, would you really ever consider a shelter to be an "exemplary" neighbour even if that never happened?

 

[KingV]

It's still a ridiculous caricature even if some homeless people do actually behave that way. I don't know if numbers on leaving piss gulps on lawns exist, but for example it's certainly a common belief that those with schizophrenia are super dangerous when the reality is that they are not at all.

It's also worth pointing out that perception plays a huge role in this. I live in a nice neighbourhood and the guy on the corner lets his dog shit on the sidewalk all the time and doesn't clean it up. People aren't going over to his house and yelling at him or calling the city to complain. Yet people are totally willing to do these things when they're inconvenienced by the homeless.

If he starts shitting on the sidewalk, it won't be long before somebody says something. There's like a mile between the relatively normal shitty neighbor that doesn't pick up his dogs poop and the guy who drops his pants in your yard and takes a dump.

 

[JP_]

From those photos, it is a pretty dense neighborhood. It's definitely understandable why someone doesn't want to look out their back window into a homeless camp.

And what do you think happens when everybody thinks that way? Homeless services have to go somewhere but nobody wants it in their back yard. Hence, NIMBYism.

 

[Zoe]

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.

Does the organization ensure that there is accessible public plumbing within the vicinity of sheds built in city neighborhoods?

 

[echoshifting]

Personally, I think we should have a stronger safety net in general, and not really have such a thing as working homeless, and have better medical services for the mentally ill. Homeless shelters are partially missing the forest for the trees, because they are addressing a symptom of a fucked up system, and not really solving the actual problem.

There are certainly idealists out there, but most people engaged in the fight against homelessness understand that it is a multifaceted, difficult problem with no easy solution. One of the difficulties they face is the apathy of the rest of the population, which results in limited resources. They can only afford to spend so much per person. So let's say they can offer one homeless person the resources they need for, maybe, a 20% chance of getting off the street and staying off the street for a year, or they can provide shelter and a meal to a hundred homeless people for a month. What's the right choice there? Either way, you aren't solving homelessness.

Homeless shelters are part of the net. They provide emergency housing to people who do not have shelter. The tragedy is there is never enough of it, not that it isn't solving homelessness.

 

[JP_]

Does the organization ensure that there is accessible public plumbing within the vicinity of sheds built in city neighborhoods?

Why do you assume the people moving into these sheds are coming from a place that already has readily available plumbing? These people aren't moving out of their homes to live in sheds, they're getting off the streets. How is it better for them to stay on the streets?

The residents are correct.
Cant just have people building illegal shelters anywhere they like.
Doesn't matter if its one of one hundred. Best thing to help homeless people is help find them get training and jobs not building them shacks.

No, research and data actually suggests that housing first programs help the most. Give them a house first, offer things like training next once they have a stable living condition. You can't effectively help people that don't even have a place to sleep at night.

 

[web01]

The residents are correct.
Cant just have people building illegal shelters anywhere they like.
Doesn't matter if its one of one hundred. Best thing to help homeless people is help find them get training and jobs not building them shacks.

 

[Zoe]

Why do you assume the people moving into these sheds are coming from a place that already has readily available plumbing? These people aren't moving out of their homes to live in sheds, they're getting off the streets. How is it better for them to stay on the streets?

He's the one saying they don't shit on the streets.

 

[JP_]

He's the one saying they don't shit on the streets.

Nice deflection.

 

[KingV]

There are certainly idealists out there, but most people engaged in the fight against homelessness understand that it is a multifaceted, difficult problem with no easy solution. One of the difficulties they face is the apathy of the rest of the population, which results in limited resources. They can only afford to spend so much per person. So let's say they can offer one homeless person the resources they need for, maybe, a 20% chance of getting off the street and staying off the street for a year, or they can provide shelter and a meal to a hundred homeless people for a month. What's the right choice there? Either way, you aren't solving homelessness.

Homeless shelters are part of the net. They provide emergency housing to people who do not have shelter. The tragedy is there is never enough of it, not that it isn't solving homelessness.

I'm talking about a system funded by taxpayer dollars, Not charity. Charity is not a real safety net, because the $'s tend to dry up when they are needed most and it's never guaranteed.

 

[Terrifyer]

If he starts shitting on the sidewalk, it won't be long before somebody says something. There's like a mile between the relatively normal shitty neighbor that doesn't pick up his dogs poop and the guy who drops his pants in your yard and takes a dump.

Why is that normal though? I mean, seriously. Why is it normal to have piles of shit on the sidewalk that you have to consciously avoid? Is it possibly normal because rich people let their dogs shit on the sidewalk and don't pick it up too?

I'm not arguing that you have to be cool with homeless people shitting on the sidewalk, by the way. I'm just pointing out that it's easy to demonize the things homeless people do because they're poor and most of us don't have that experience. While at the same time we normalize disgusting and irritating things that wealthy people do. Perception plays a huge role in this problem.

 

[UncleSporky]

It's still a ridiculous caricature even if some homeless people do actually behave that way. I don't know if numbers on leaving piss gulps on lawns exist, but for example it's certainly a common belief that those with schizophrenia are super dangerous when the reality is that they are not at all.

It's also worth pointing out that perception plays a huge role in this. I live in a nice neighbourhood and the guy on the corner lets his dog shit on the sidewalk all the time and doesn't clean it up. People aren't going over to his house and yelling at him or calling the city to complain. Yet people are totally willing to do these things when they're inconvenienced by the homeless.

You didn't answer my question, though.

 

[Zoe]

Nice deflection.

This person wasn't already living in the backyard. The organization is already displacing him. The responsible thing would be to place people where there are public services available to them. With suburban sprawl, most neighborhoods would provide no such access.

 

[turtle553]

And what do you think happens when everybody thinks that way? Homeless services have to go somewhere but nobody wants it in their back yard. Hence, NIMBYism.

There's a difference between a properly run shelter and a homeless camp without any facilities or oversight.

 

[The Beard]

Why is that normal though? I mean, seriously. Why is it normal to have piles of shit on the sidewalk that you have to consciously avoid? Is it possibly normal because rich people let their dogs shit on the sidewalk and don't pick it up too?

I'm not arguing that you have to be cool with homeless people shitting on the sidewalk, by the way. I'm just pointing out that it's easy to demonize the things homeless people do because they're poor and most of us don't have that experience. While at the same time we normalize disgusting and irritating things that wealthy people do. Perception plays a huge role in this problem.

Dog shit /= Human shit

Also, homeless people leave behind "toilet paper".

 

[outunderthestars]

There's a difference between a properly run shelter and a homeless camp without any facilities or oversight.

This is a key issue that seems to get ignored. What if that homeowner decided to have more sheds built on his yard. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

When multiple encounters with police are described, were they clear on exactly what you were building? It's stated that the first officer "knew the gist of what we were doing," but I'm honestly a little bit surprised that the project didn't end right then and there. I'm no lawyer in the first place and I'm certainly not familiar with laws in place in every municipality in America, but the second round of police intervention surely didn't need to end with technicalities about building permits I wouldn't think. Just the mere fact that it's a shed-like building being constructed without running water or electricity intended to house a person strikes me as something illegal to begin with.

Mind you, I get that you can skirt around this initially during the construction phase by omitting what its intended purpose is. But if the neighbors and police know what your group does and why you're building this structure, it strikes me as something trivially easy to oppose just due to building codes and zoning requirements.

 

[Nepenthe]

When multiple encounters with police are described, were they clear on exactly what you were building? It's stated that the first officer "knew the gist of what we were doing," but I'm honestly a little bit surprised that the project didn't end right then and there. I'm no lawyer in the first place and I'm certainly not familiar with laws in place in every municipality in America, but the second round of police intervention surely didn't need to end with technicalities about building permits I wouldn't think. Just the mere fact that it's a shed-like building being constructed without running water or electricity intended to house a person strikes me as something illegal to begin with.

Mind you, I get that you can skirt around this initially during the construction phase by omitting what its intended purpose is. But if the neighbors and police know what your group does and why they're building this structure, it strikes me as something trivially easy to oppose just due to building codes and zoning requirements.

The organizer outright told both the lady and the officer what we were building, who would be living there, and even gave the officer his business card. The first officer saw no issue, lamented that he had even been called out for such a thing, took some photos as per protocol, talked to the woman again on the street, and then left. The second round of cops came, took the organizer to the side of the house and talked to him (I couldn't hear much of anything outside of "permits"), came back to us, and the organizer told us we'd have to stop. The cops stuck around to watch us get the roofing on while talking to us about how they also didn't want to really honor the call either. They seemed to not give much of a shit about the whole thing, mainly because it seemed like they knew the homeless man himself since after we got the stuff back into the organizers car, they were having a pretty casual conversation about the whole thing.

 

[Wedge7]

Wow, some of the replies in this thread are pretty surprising. If I understood the situation correctly, this group is building these little shack like shelters for homeless people to live on some guys backyard, with his permission obviously, and the other neighbors arent cool with? Well no shit. Lol, if I ever saw one of my neighbors pulling something like that, your damn right I'm gonna raise some hell. Honestly, that just sounds so crazy. Forget the idea of it fucking up property values and shit, cause who would want to move into a neighborhood that has homeless people just chilling in the backyard, but I'm going to admit I'd be more than a little uneasy having them literally right next door.

I was ready to take your side when I opened the thread, and figured it was some nosy neighbor or person with no empathy causing trouble, but I can completely agree with the concerns they had and honestly might have reacted in the same fashion. Maybe not react quite as aggressively, but definitely show my displeasure.

I dunno, I just feel like most people would have the same thoughts as myself, honestly dont know too many people who would be cool with looking out my backyard window and seeing some homeless guy living in a little shack in my neighbors backyard, especially in suburban neighborhoods.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

The organizer outright told both the lady and the officer what we were building, who would be living there, and even gave the officer his business card. The first officer saw no issue, lamented that he had even been called out for such a thing, took some photos as per protocol, talked to the woman again on the street, and then left. The second round of cops came, took the organizer to the side of the house and talked to him (I couldn't hear much of anything outside of "permits"), came back to us, and the organizer told us we'd have to stop. The cops stuck around to watch us get the roofing on while talking to us about how they also didn't want to really honor the call either. They seemed to not give much of a shit about the whole thing, mainly because it seemed like they knew the homeless man himself since after we got the stuff back into the organizers car, they were having a pretty casual conversation about the whole thing.

Well, either they were just sympathetic to the cause and willing to turn a blind eye to its real purpose, or I just don't understand Atlanta's occupancy laws (or probably any municipality's really; I can't tell you if this is legal in even my own town) and am making erroneous assumptions. But my initial kneejerk reaction to this story was "there's no way this is legal."

 

[hodayathink]

When multiple encounters with police are described, were they clear on exactly what you were building? It's stated that the first officer "knew the gist of what we were doing," but I'm honestly a little bit surprised that the project didn't end right then and there. I'm no lawyer in the first place and I'm certainly not familiar with laws in place in every municipality in America, but the second round of police intervention surely didn't need to end with technicalities about building permits I wouldn't think. Just the mere fact that it's a shed-like building being constructed without running water or electricity intended to house a person strikes me as something illegal to begin with.

Mind you, I get that you can skirt around this initially during the construction phase by omitting what its intended purpose is. But if the neighbors and police know what your group does and why you're building this structure, it strikes me as something trivially easy to oppose just due to building codes and zoning requirements.

The organizer outright told both the lady and the officer what we were building, who would be living there, and even gave the officer his business card. The first officer saw no issue, lamented that he had even been called out for such a thing, took some photos as per protocol, talked to the woman again on the street, and then left. The second round of cops came, took the organizer to the side of the house and talked to him (I couldn't hear much of anything outside of "permits"), came back to us, and the organizer told us we'd have to stop. The cops stuck around to watch us get the roofing on while talking to us about how they also didn't want to really honor the call either. They seemed to not give much of a shit about the whole thing, mainly because it seemed like they knew the homeless man himself since after we got the stuff back into the organizers car, they were having a pretty casual conversation about the whole thing.

I think with both cops they would have rather let it slide, but knew that if the neighbors wanted to force it, they'd be able to get the whole thing shut down pretty quick. Which is why the first cop followed basic protocol but allowed them to continue, but when the second call came through the cops realized the neighbors were serious and would go beyond any particular cop trying to placate them. And like you said, if you were to just say you were building a shed without adding the fact that it was for someone to live in, I'd have to imagine there wouldn't be much of any legal issues (I mean, the fact that it's sitting on blocks means you wouldn't even have to dig), which is more than likely why they can get away with building it in areas where the homeless are already living (because in many of those areas if the owners cared about the homeless living there they would have already done something to move them).

 

[Terrifyer]

You didn't answer my question, though.

I thought it was rhetorical. No, it would be ridiculous to close a shelter down because somebody peed outside or something. Yes, oversight does need to be in place, and there will be some people who won't be a good fit for a shelter because of their behaviour. It doesn't need to be all or nothing.

Dog shit /= Human shit

Also, homeless people leave behind "toilet paper".

Is there some reason dog shit is way better? Like if you happened to walk by both on the sidewalk you'd know which was which and be thankful one was just dog shit? They're both gross and they both present real contamination hazards.

Anyway, my point wasn't that homeless shelters entail people shitting on the sidewalk and you need to be cool with it. My point was just that we villify homeless people for all sorts of stuff and that we accept other really gross stuff as normal, and a big part of the difference is money. Dog shit on the sidewalk is just an example of something that's really gross that we accept.

 

[Zoe]

Is there some reason dog shit is way better? Like if you happened to walk by both on the sidewalk you'd know which was which and be thankful one was just dog shit? They're both gross and they both present real contamination hazards.

Anyway, my point wasn't that homeless shelters entail people shitting on the sidewalk and you need to be cool with it. My point was just that we villify homeless people for all sorts of stuff and that we accept other really gross stuff as normal, and a big part of the difference is money. Dog shit on the sidewalk is just an example of something that's really gross that we accept.

HOA's certainly don't accept it.

 

[turtle553]

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.

This also sounds like it was the first time they actually tried to build one of these shelters on a residential property. No wonder it was the first time they had to stop.

 

[ZackieChan]

Wow, some of the replies in this thread are pretty surprising. If I understood the situation correctly, this group is building these little shack like shelters for homeless people to live on some guys backyard, with his permission obviously, and the other neighbors arent cool with? Well no shit. Lol, if I ever saw one of my neighbors pulling something like that, your damn right I'm gonna raise some hell. Honestly, that just sounds so crazy. Forget the idea of it fucking up property values and shit, cause who would want to move into a neighborhood that has homeless people just chilling in the backyard, but I'm going to admit I'd be more than a little uneasy having them literally right next door.

I was ready to take your side when I opened the thread, and figured it was some nosy neighbor or person with no empathy causing trouble, but I can completely agree with the concerns they had and honestly might have reacted in the same fashion. Maybe not react quite as aggressively, but definitely show my displeasure.

I dunno, I just feel like most people would have the same thoughts as myself, honestly dont know too many people who would be cool with looking out my backyard window and seeing some homeless guy living in a little shack in my neighbors backyard, especially in suburban neighborhoods.

And it would be new homeless people on a regular basis, with no running water or plumbing, etc. The whole thing just sounds insane to me. I have a feeling that those in favor of this don't own property and are very young. I don't own property, but it's easy for me to see how this is something people wouldn't want outside their homes.

 

[Jest Chillin]

HOA's certainly don't accept it.

HOA's don't allow a lot of things. Like painting your house a different color and a number of other restrictions that are ridiculously controlling.

But I'm biased on them because I find paying fees to an organization so they can tell you what you can't do to your own property utterly ridiculous.

And it would be new homeless people on a regular basis, with no running water or plumbing, etc. The whole thing just sounds insane to me. I have a feeling that those in favor of this don't own property and are very young. I don't own property, but it's easy for me to see how this is something people wouldn't want outside their homes.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest it would be new homeless people on a regular basis or that there were plans for an entire camp on this mans property.

I'm really quite amazed that so many in this thread are jumping to these unfounded conclusions.

 

[Transhuman]

The residents are correct.
Cant just have people building illegal shelters anywhere they like.
Doesn't matter if its one of one hundred. Best thing to help homeless people is help find them get training and jobs not building them shacks.

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day"
"Just sleep on the street until we figure out what to do with you"

He's an idea: we could turn the homeless into tires, so that we'd still have homeless, but we could use them, on our cars.

 

[ZackieChan]

HOA's don't allow a lot of things. Like painting your house a different color and a number of other restrictions that are ridiculously controlling.

But I'm biased on them because I find paying fees to an organization so they can tell you what you can't do to your own property utterly ridiculous.



There is absolutely nothing to suggest it would be new homeless people on a regular basis or that there were plans for an entire camp on this mans property.

I'm really quite amazed that so many in this thread are jumping to these unfounded conclusions.

Painting your house a different color is on another level than building a shelter for homeless people, don't you think?

To your second point, here's the OP:

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.

I wouldn't say that this is jumping to conclusions at all.

 

[Mental Atrophy]

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.

Well, the homeless ruined the Springwater Trail for me and everybody else. I used to bike to work via the trail on a daily basis, but after multiple stabbings and sexual assaults of pedestrians, hypodermic needles and other litter everywhere, bike theft, brush fires, people shitting in backyards, and people just laying in the middle of the trail, it became a place I avoid. It was the homeless who made it that way and not anybody else. At least I have the luxury of being able to just avoid it, unlike the people who live by it.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Honestly, that tidbit from the OP confuses me. Wouldn't it be cheaper and less time consuming to help the applicant contact their family than build a shack and have them live in it until. . .I guess they save up enough to buy a Tracfone?

I'm not understanding the logic there. Option A - you use your easy Internet and phone access to find their family. Option B - they wait in a particle board shack until they can contact them. Why is Option B brought up as necessary?

Are you guys helping the applicants with food or clean water? It sounds like you have a group selected, so are you supporting them beyond the shack? Can you give them computer access to (for Option B) find their family?

 

[Jest Chillin]

Painting your house a different color is on another level than building a shelter for homeless people, don't you think?

To your second point, here's the OP:



I wouldn't say that this is jumping to conclusions at all.

Not being allowed to paint your house a different color was just an example of how strict an HOA's rules can be as well as an example of how unique it is that there would be an HOA. It wasn't a comparison to building the shed.

And you also misunderstood the statement you quoted quite badly. He was talking about the general use of the sheds, not the intended use of this particular one. Seeing as how he clearly stated that this shed was the first done on a homes property and that they screened a single man for it, yes, it very much is jumping to conclusions.

It's as if you only want to pay attention to details that you can interpret towards a worst case scenario rather than separate what what stated as particular to this build vs what was stated in answer to what the organization has done in general in the past under different circumstances.

 

[hodayathink]

Honestly, that tidbit from the OP confuses me. Wouldn't it be cheaper and less time consuming to help the applicant contact their family than build a shack and have them live in it until. . .I guess they save up enough to buy a Tracfone?

I'm not understanding the logic there. Option A - you use your easy Internet and phone access to find their family. Option B - they wait in a particle board shack until they can contact them. Why is Option B brought up as necessary?

Are you guys helping the applicants with food or clean water? It sounds like you have a group selected, so are you supporting them beyond the shack? Can you give them computer access to (for Option B) find their family?

First of all, you're assuming they have family. Second of all, you're assuming their family wants anything to do with them. Third of all, you're assuming that they want anything to do with their family.

 

[ZackieChan]

Not being allowed to paint your house a different color was just an example of how strict an HOA's rules can be as well as an example of how unique it is that there would be an HOA. It wasn't a comparison to building the shed.

And you also misunderstood the statement you quoted quite badly. He was talking about the general use of the sheds, not the intended use of this particular one. Seeing as how he clearly stated that this shed was the first done on a homes property and that they screened a single man for it, yes, it very much is jumping to conclusions.

It's as if you only want to pay attention to details that you can interpret towards a worst case scenario rather than separate what what stated as particular to this build vs what was stated in answer to what the organization has done in general in the past under different circumstances.

I've read every one of OP's posts here, and while they may have screened this man, they also apparently screen everyone that gets let into them. Here's a post:

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.

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.

I'm not seeing anything in his posts that says that this one was different. Just that it is the first one that's on someone's residential property. And if it is permanent housing for this person, why doesn't it have plumbing? If someone is living their permanently and going to the bathroom in a yard, again, it is natural for neighbors to be against that.

 

[JP_]

Maybe people don't realize this is inspired by other examples of tiny houses being built for homeless -- it's a cost effective way to get a roof over their head. Usually they'll make a small village out of them and have something like portapottys nearby. Yeah, it's a bit odd to have someone want one in their back yard but people making a big deal about the lack of plumbing seem to think homeless people on the street can conjure up toilets at will. Most businesses etc aren't going to let them use their toilets. Living on the street isn't pretty -- having a shed to sleep in is at least something. They aren't giving up a toilet to live in the shed. It is very possible that hoa laws would prevent it but that doesn't make it moral to keep someone on the street.

This person wasn't already living in the backyard. The organization is already displacing him. The responsible thing would be to place people where there are public services available to them. With suburban sprawl, most neighborhoods would provide no such access.

Somehow I doubt it's compulsory. You're suggesting it's irresponsible to take someone off the street (voluntarily) and give them a roof to sleep under? That it's more responsible to leave them on the street? If they had access to sufficient services they wouldn't need the shed in the first place.