Support NeoGAF

[thelastcrusader]

I don't really blame the guy. The shed would likely turn into a fuckshack. Also who would maintain it, clean it, and check it for dead bodies?

 

[Marky Mark]

I've got to say, as soon as I saw the finished product it reminded me of this from the triumph trump focus group:

 

[infinitys_7th]

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.

I'm not the one who made the assumption. That is one of the assumed reasons the OP gave for how this shack works as a stop gap.

I just reasoned from where the OP started.

 

[Nepenthe]

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."

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).

These are my thoughts. The cops were sympathetic to us, and after the first encounter ended we assumed that was the end of that. In general, all of the cops made it pretty clear that they personally didn't see the problem after the organizer was upfront about exactly what we were doing. Granted, this may have been from an angle of their own personal morals or ethics versus the actual law on the books since we eventually had to stop work on it. Furthermore, I assume the organizer is going to work any legal issues out with the homeowner if he wants to take it that far; otherwise he's going to have to disassemble the whole thing.

Also, after this thread I've become open to, although I still do like the idea of setting up quick temporary places for people to not be stuck in the rain, or to be less susceptible to robbery. As I said before, I took a shower and was thinking of suggesting to the organizer about starting a volunteer branch that deals specifically with legal matters and getting permits and ordinances, so there's less of a chance of running into conflict like this again in the future. However, this might fall on deaf ears; again, this guy has dedicated the last two decades of his life to doing this kind of thing, and it seems I just happened to volunteer on the day where it all went wrong.

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?

I feel like if any particular applicants could easily find their family, they would have by the time any particular organization got to them? People become and remain homeless for a multitude of reasons, and as for getting back with family, they may have either lost contact or been cut off for any reason, or simply have a family in a situation that's unable to support them. This guy is old anyway: balding and grey, wrinkled skin, etc. Who knows if he even has any family left?

As for your second question(s), applicants are supported afterwards with a little food, water, and structural upkeep of the huts, but this kind of charity is second to the main goal of the organization. The huts are for an extremely basic purpose: get people out of the elements and into something that can be slept in and locked for the safety of themselves and their belongings. No more or less.

@ZackieChan: The guy was already living on the yard in some small kiddie tent, and sleeping sometimes on the porch. I also imagine he'd been there for some time, although I don't know for how long nor do I know the extent of his contact with the neighbors before we came along. We were all over that yard for a few hours moving lumber and tools and general construction activity, and there was no hint or smell of human feces to be found. The warehouse where we initially rolled out from smelled much worse due to the neighbor's copious amount of dogs. So wherever the man is using the bathroom, it isn't in the yard or near the fences where the neighbors were arguing from.

 

[Jest Chillin]

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:



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.

How are you missing the context clues? The buildings aren't permanent residence but that doesn't mean that this one becomes a revolving door for any homeless.

If you read everything, including the quoted parts of the FAQs the conclusion should be that:

This organization typically builds these on land that homeless are already using. This is the first exception. They were there to build one structure for one specific man.

Nothing suggests that in this one unique situation that the structure was to become a halfway home for a series of homeless nor was the man going to build a homeless camp. These ideas are pure fiction built from descriptions of previous builds that were constructed in already existing homeless camps.

You're making a huge logical leap that because a property owner wanted one structure for one man that it will necessarily become more than that. It's really really poor slippery slope logic.

 

[hodayathink]

@ZackieChan: The guy was already living on the yard in some small kiddie tent, and sleeping sometimes on the porch. I also imagine he'd been there for some time, although I don't know for how long nor do I know the extent of his contact with the neighbors before we came along. We were all over that yard for a few hours moving lumber and tools and general construction activity, and there was no hint or smell of human feces to be found. The warehouse where we initially rolled out from smelled much worse due to the neighbor's copious amount of dogs. So wherever the man is using the bathroom, it isn't in the yard or near the fences where the neighbors were arguing from.

Wait, just so I'm clear. The person you were building this for was already living on this specific property in a tent, and this was just about the homeowner letting you build a shack for him instead of the tent? Because I assumed he lived some place else in the tent, and the homeowner decided to let him (or, more to the point, some homeless person) live in a shack on his property.

 

[Nepenthe]

Wait, just so I'm clear. The person you were building this for was already living on this specific property in a tent, and this was just about the homeowner letting you build a shack for him instead of the tent? Because I assumed he lived some place else in the tent, and the homeowner decided to let him (or, more to the point, some homeless person) live in a shack on his property.

That's correct: the homeless guy was already living on the homeowner's property before we were contracted out. His tent was plainly visible in the backyard, and accounts from the organizers, volunteers, and neighbors indicated that he could commonly be found sleeping on the house's front porch. All we were doing was coming out to build him something better than that rinkydink tent with the permission and blessing of the actual homeowner.

The homeless person did not settle elsewhere. If he had, well, why in the world would we build it on a random property, even if the homeowner was okay with it? The FAQ states that these huts are built in the areas closest to where the occupants are already settled.

 

[JP_]

Sucks that those neighbors will probably harass the homeless guy now that they're more aware of him =/

 

[hodayathink]

That's correct: the homeless guy was already living on the homeowner's property before we were contracted out. His tent was plainly visible in the backyard, and accounts from the organizers, volunteers, and neighbors indicated that he could commonly be found sleeping on the house's front porch. All we were doing was coming out to build him something better than that rinkydink tent with the permission and blessing of the actual homeowner.

The homeless person did not settle elsewhere. If he had, well, why in the world would we build it on a random property, even if the homeowner was okay with it? The FAQ states that these huts are built in the areas closest to where the occupants are already settled.

Well, that explains why the neighbors are so pissed (I mean a HOA would explain it, but if the dude was part of a HOA he would have known that this would have been shut down as soon as you started). They probably were unhappy with the homeowner letting him stay there in the first place, and letting you build him a temporary residence was the last straw.

 

[Nepenthe]

Well, that explains why the neighbors are so pissed (I mean a HOA would explain it, but if the dude was part of a HOA he would have known that this would have been shut down as soon as you started). They probably were unhappy with the homeowner letting him stay there in the first place, and letting you build him a temporary residence was the last straw.

Definitely. Although considering how quick they were to call the police, I feel like these people would've had the old dude kicked out before it got to the point that Mad Housers got a call, especially since it didn't seem like he could enter the actual house anyway (again, I don't know if it was because the house itself was uninhabitable or what). I wish I could be privy to more information about the whole situation, or at least that the actual property owner had been there.

 

[ZackieChan]

How are you missing the context clues? The buildings aren't permanent residence but that doesn't mean that this one becomes a revolving door for any homeless.

If you read everything, including the quoted parts of the FAQs the conclusion should be that:

This organization typically builds these on land that homeless are already using. This is the first exception. They were there to build one structure for one specific man.

Nothing suggests that in this one unique situation that the structure was to become a halfway home for a series of homeless nor was the man going to build a homeless camp. These ideas are pure fiction built from descriptions of previous builds that were constructed in already existing homeless camps.

You're making a huge logical leap that because a property owner wanted one structure for one man that it will necessarily become more than that. It's really really poor slippery slope logic.

I believe I'm making the logical conclusion based on every other project that the organization has done and the lack of evidence to the contrary. Even OP's latest post doesn't directly contradict that, but it does sound like this was mainly for this dude. So I stand corrected, maybe.

 

[mdubs]

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

You're right there OP. This just screams bad idea

 

[KingV]

It wasnt clear that he already lived there, which makes a ton more sense all around.

That said, I still don't think it's cool. It's like, either invite the guy to live with you as a roommate or build a proper one bedroom in your backyard. Either of those are acceptable solutions. Building a human-sized doghouse really isn't.

 

[dreamcastmaster]

That said, I still don't think it's cool. It's like, either invite the guy to live with you as a roommate or build a proper one bedroom in your backyard. Either of those are acceptable solutions. Building a human-sized doghouse really isn't.

Its like, "I'll help you just enough to feel good about myself, but not enough to take any risk".

 

[Mascot]

The sentiment is commendable but the execution is so, so flawed.

 

[hodayathink]

It wasnt clear that he already lived there, which makes a ton more sense all around.

That said, I still don't think it's cool. It's like, either invite the guy to live with you as a roommate or build a proper one bedroom in your backyard. Either of those are acceptable solutions. Building a human-sized doghouse really isn't.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in this instance, the property owner didn't actually live at the residence.

 

[KurtSloane]

"And then two black guys..."

What purpose did that detail serve?

Same as the white lady detail.

 

[The Beard]

I don't really blame the guy. The shed would likely turn into a fuckshack. Also who would maintain it, clean it, and check it for dead bodies?

Dirty Mike and the boys would turn that shed into a fuckshack real quick.

 

[Greddleok]

So do they just shit in the garden like animals?

Or do they go into the home owner's house for a poop?

 

[milanbaros]

This idea seems really not well thought out. I don't think you should be allowed to just build shed dwellings for the homeless only on the permission of the land owner.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Yeah, you can't just built shacks and have people live in it in your backyard without going through the proper process. It's literally building a small new home, so get your papers in order for that.

Neighbors are in the right, sorry. But an extra bed in the actual home on the property and let them stay there then.

 

[Heaven Shard]

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

So what's the problem? You wanted to help someone and you got upset because you did it wrong? Work with it, do it properly. It is pointless and selfish to go 'boo hoo, my efforts weren't appreciated' or 'something stopped me from doing good'. People have a say in their area.

 

[echoshifting]

I wouldn't be surprised if, in this instance, the property owner didn't actually live at the residence.

I've been thinking the same thing since the beginning of this thread. This might not actually be the owner's primary residence.

 

[YourMaster]

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.

Well, sure it is. You seem to think that people who don't want stuff around their house are generally wrong, they aren't. The argument people have against such a shelter is not that it exists, but that they don't want to have it around them.

And personally, I own a plot of land, and I feel that it should be my decision if I wanted to build a homeless/refugee shelter there. That being said, I wouldn't be very happy if one of my neighbors actually decided to do so.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well, sure it is. You seem to think that people who don't want stuff around their house are generally wrong, they aren't. The argument people have against such a shelter is not that it exists, but that they don't want to have it around them.

And personally, I own a plot of land, and I feel that it should be my decision if I wanted to build a homeless/refugee shelter there. That being said, I wouldn't be very happy if one of my neighbors actually decided to do so.

It should be your decision, but after you made that decision you should get the proper approvals and licenses. You can't just randomly start a homeless shelter in your backyard, just like you can't just start a hotel, cafe, shop or other things.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

It's rare that I come across a thread and think "I'm glad HOAs exist" but this is definitely one of those times. I certainly do not know the solution to homelessness but making affluent neighbors involuntary participants in a poorly conceived test was bound to go up in flames.

I'm not even sure how it could be a sustainable short-term living situation without the homeless person being perpetually dependent upon their host. Suburbs are awful in terms of walkability. They won't have a source of food/water, they won't have restrooms, and they won't have any way to get back and forth to a job.

 

[nekkid]

I really can't fault your motives, OP, but I disagree with the execution.

Homeless people need structure, support and a very real path to getting their lives back on track. It's the whole "buy the man a fish...but buy him a rod..." thing. Getting the guy out of the rain is unlikely to have any long term positive impact on his life, in fact it could also spin negatively.

Again, I'm in awe of your dedication to the cause. Maybe you could use your time to help at a shelter, instead?

 

[GSG Flash]

You know, I'm sure if you were building a house for the homeless dude that fell in line with the rest of the neighborhood, everything would be fine. People live beside all kinds of neighbours, both pleasant and unpleasant.

The place of dwelling has to be appropriate for the neighborhood IMO.

 

[Keasar]

I stand with you OP. You were doing your best and some fuckers who wouldn't have noticed anything different with their lives except there now being a shed-ish building in the area were just uptight assholes. I assume the person who's property it was being built on was compliant with it. The homeless man would have his own little private abode to take cover from the rain, it wouldn't be a long term solution for him but it would help him be comfortable while working it out.

Carlin time? Carlin time.

N-I-M-B-Y, “Not In My Back Yard!” People don’t want anything, any kind of social help, located anywhere near ‘em! You try to open up a Halfway House, try to open up a drug rehab or an alcohol rehab center, try to do a homeless shelter somewhere, try to open up a little home for some retarded people who wanna work their way into the community, people say “NOT IN MY BACKYARD!” People don’t want anything near ‘em especially if it might help somebody else; part of that great American spirited generosity we hear about—pbbt!!! Great generous American spirit! You can ask an Indian about that; ask an Indian – if you can find one... you gotta locate an Indian first; we’ve made ‘em just a little difficult to find – or if you need current data, select a black family at random, ask them how generous America has been to them.

People don’t want anything near ‘em, even if it’s something they believe in, something they think society needs, like prisons! Everybody wants more prisons right? Everybody wants more prisons. People say “BUILD MORE PRISONS... ...but not here.” Well why not? What’s wrong? What’s the problem? What’s wrong with having a prison in your neighborhood? It would seem to me like it would make it a pretty crime-free area, don’t you think? You think a lot of crackheads and pimps and hookers and thieves are gonna be hanging around in front of a fucking prison?! Bullshit! They ain’t coming anywhere NEAR it!!! What’s wrong with these people? All the criminals are locked up behind the walls and if a couple of them do break out, what do you think they’re gonna do? Hang around? Check real estate trends? Bullshit! Pwwt! They’re fucking gone! That’s the whole idea of breaking out of prison is to get the fuck as far away as you possibly can! ...not in my backyard...

People don’t want anything near ‘em... except military bases. They don’t mind that do they? They like that. Give ‘em an army base, give ‘em a navy base, makes ‘em happy, why? Jobs! Jobs! Self-interest! Even if the base is loaded with nuclear weapons, THEY DON’T GIVE A FUCK!!! They say “well, I’ll take a little radiation if I can get a job!” Working people have been fucked over so long in this country, those are the kind of decisions they’re left to make.

I miss this man.