|
Outrail posted:The committee of the damned. Why have one or two people do something useful when three or more can spend twice as long being half as effective? Ugh that hurts because it's true.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Ain't no laws against piracy 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
Text message: " hey man if you don't come get your dock in the next two weeks I'm gonna toss it" Wait a month and haul it to the dump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Text message: " hey man if you don't come get your dock in the next two weeks I'm gonna toss it" Post it on Kijiji for half the value and it'll be gone before the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Anyone good at battling city councils? A friend in California, along with much of their neighborhood, is minorly freaking out because the city very suddenly announced that some city-owned property very near them is going to be used for the next nine months as a "safe parking area" for eight or nine (but eventually possibly up to twenty) RV owners who had previously been living in a homeless encampment. This is a pretty public affair, so I don't mind sharing that it's the city of San Jose. It's an odd situation where Apple has paid a bunch of money to put people up in motels to justify clearing an encampment off their property, but the RV owners needed the additional facilities of an RV parking area. They will be living on the lot, not just storing the RVs there. Council members have referred to this as a kind of pilot program for future plans. Now, obviously this is kind of a can of worms in terms of the optics of this neighborhood's response. I'm mostly curious if there is even a reasonable possibility of being able to challenge the city's action here whether based on a lack of notice or anything like that. As far as I can tell there was never really any public statement about the plan until days before it was set to be implemented, and even now you have to find random Nextdoor posts by a councilmember to get their statements on it. Of course the neighbors can and will be viewed as stereotypical NIMBYers, and it can feel pretty awful trying to shut down a plan to help homeless people, especially now. But it's kind of odd that they can't just, you know, store the RVs on the lot while putting the owners up in the same motels as the others. At the end of the day I expect the plan to go through, and for lots of people to grumble about having to be near undesirables... but I can see how they feel that the city is making this more of an emergency than it needs to be as an excuse to implement a plan with no real opportunity for feedback. Martman fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 00:41
|
|
|
The answer is to not be a nimby about people living on property that you do not own, yeah Using an existing empty lot to contain the rvs, the people, and their stuff is probably significantly cheaper than paying for hotels AND RV storage AND probably a storage unit for the rest of the RV full of stuff they have that won't fit into a hotel room. But I'm sure your very special objections to having to see homeless people will be worth them tripling their budget for the entire project just for you Javid fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
Javid posted:The answer is to not be a nimby about people living on property that you do not own, yeah
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
A parked RV will deteriorate in the elements in various ways if left unoccupied for months with nobody keeping the interior climate controlled (such as they can) or noticing/dealing with leaks. When RV-wealthy people need to park it they usually have it covered / plugged in to run a heater and or dehumidifier / whatever; unless the city is also going to pay for THESE things, forcibly separating the occupants from the vehicles would probably just gently caress up their vehicles and make their lives worse afterwards. (if anyone even agreed to it; they probably have no other vehicle) a random google tells me covered secured RV storage in san jose ranges from $100-250 a month depending on length, as a starting point for that math. power is probably extra, and they definitely wouldn't be able to live there or get into it frequently Javid fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Also if they’re already living in their RV you’re effectively suggesting they should be evicted - they might well *prefer* to stay in the RV home they have vs having to live in a motel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
RV campgrounds literally do this all the time and they're usually cheaper than any but the cheapest motels. What you're suggesting is to 1) store an RV that could otherwise be containing people and 2) relocate said people to a hotel room that could otherwise be containing other homeless individuals. RVs are literally hotels on wheels. Why you wouldn't want to take advantage of that when trying to house people is beyond me, and you're unlikely to come up with any sort of financial argument that would work. This is a two-birds-one-stone situation if I ever saw one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
That all makes sense, and I agree that it will probably be a very good thing for the RV owners. I get why "posting for a friend" can go in stupid directions, but this genuinely is a case where my friend is clearly getting very stressed out and I'm just trying to think about the possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
your friend is a bad person, opDaveSauce posted:What you're suggesting is to 1) store an RV that could otherwise be containing people and 2) relocate said people to a hotel room that could otherwise be containing other homeless individuals. and 3: pay a third party to make sure the RV is clean and intact and not being squatted by OTHER homeless people, instead of the person living in it who will do those things for free already it's also worth noting that the main difference is that now you/your friend know where those 20 homeless people in RVs are, instead of the nearby random church parking lots and industrial side streets they were probably circulating between before
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Martman posted:That all makes sense, and I agree that it will probably be a very good thing for the RV owners. I get why "posting for a friend" can go in stupid directions, but this genuinely is a case where my friend is clearly getting very stressed out and I'm just trying to think about the possibilities. Why are they stressed, is it like right next to the houses or something? Is it in their view?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
That's very fair that the financials probably lean heavily in favor of letting them use their RVs. I have no idea, though, what kind of processes went into deciding on this particular property, and what is generally required of cities in terms of making these decisions transparently. From what I can tell these people were previously living at a pretty known spot, so the difference is more that they're gonna be nearby rather than out of sight. I am not asking for advice on kicking them out on the streets, although I understand that many of the complaining neighbors do not have good motivations. e: it is very very close to their house, and I dunno I think covid has made some people's parental anxiety go pretty wild. So they have fears about the city not following through on providing services and the site becoming unsanitary and dangerous and stuff. yes, I understand that many of these fears are influenced by bad and dehumanizing views of the homeless. Martman fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
Quick aside - there is enough vacant housing in the USA to put a roof over every houseless person's head in this nation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
This is pretty obviously nimbyism. Ask your friend why they're opposed to people residing in a residential area, specifically. Would the objections be the same if the new residents were wealthy snowbirds? Did any of the following come up: Crime, those people, property value, safety, drugs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
Anyone who has seen the encampments in Portland can understand why someone doesn’t want that moving next door. We have literal open air chop shops and the number of car and catalytic converter thefts is absurd. However if they provide water, sewer, showers, meals, trash service, and a security guard then it should be fine. Without those things it has a high chance of being a cesspool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
A portland-style tent camp is exactly what you'll get if you ruin 20 RVs with unattended exposure damage, and that many people get booted out of their hotels in 9 months and have to scramble to figure something else out. Which adds up, since Portland got how it currently is, in part, by treating the homeless as much like garbage as legally possible at every opportunity
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Javid posted:A portland-style tent camp is exactly what you'll get if you ruin 20 RVs with unattended exposure damage, and that many people get booted out of their hotels in 9 months and have to scramble to figure something else out. Which adds up, since Portland got how it currently is, in part, by treating the homeless as much like garbage as legally possible at every opportunity It’s not just tents. It’s also run down and stolen cars and RVs. And A lot of them aren’t really getting any maintenance where they sit anyway. I don’t think motels are a much better solution either. What is needed is thousands of units of housing. Moving people around to different locations doesn’t help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 06:22
|
|
|
therobit posted:Anyone who has seen the encampments in Portland can understand why someone doesn’t want that moving next door. We have literal open air chop shops and the number of car and catalytic converter thefts is absurd. The latter is what these promise to provide. Well, except maybe meals. This is just an interim solution. We're building a bunch of temporary housing options including safe parking. The homeless camps already exist, you need to create places that the people who want to follow the rules can safely live and then go after the actual problematic elements without encountering Boise issues (though note that Boise is much less restrictive than some claim). nm fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 10:01
|
|
|
therobit posted:It’s not just tents. It’s also run down and stolen cars and RVs. And A lot of them aren’t really getting any maintenance where they sit anyway. I don’t think motels are a much better solution either. What is needed is thousands of units of housing. Moving people around to different locations doesn’t help. We have the housing. It's sitting vacant. There is more vacant housing in the USA than houseless people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 13:01
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:We have the housing. It's sitting vacant. There is more vacant housing in the USA than houseless people. BUT WHO WILL PROFIT IF WE JUST LET PEOPLE LIVE THERE
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
Martman posted:Now, obviously this is kind of a can of worms in terms of the optics of this neighborhood's response. I don't think the 'optics' are the problem here. Your neighbourhood wants to do a bad thing and that will make them look bad, because it is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
I think framing this as “how can the city provide enough services to this ad hoc RV park so as not to make it a disaster zone for either the RV residents or the neighborhood?” is a more reasonable stance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
nm posted:The latter is what these promise to provide. Well, except maybe meals. Yeah, I’m not aware of what’s happening in California around this issue. In Portland it has been “here’s some space that we may or may not kick you out of later, with or without notice.” There has been very little in the way of services provided. No trash service so garbage piles up. No sewer or portajohns so there is literal poo poo piling up. The city declared a state of emergency for housing years ago and said that as a result of that they would allow people to camp, but then failed to take any additional steps. It’s a humanitarian disaster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
I think only the people, like myself, who would set $500,000 of cash on fire to show how cool and understanding we are, are allowed to judge the people who's property values are about to plummet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Oh man I missed Canadian shoreline chat. IANAL but I deal with Canadian maritime law on the reg and used to deal with floating docks in a professional capacity. Get a lawyer The dock is arguably under federal domain, the surface of the lake is, the shoreline can be under like twelve different local and provincial environmental regulations… like, are you even sure you own the shoreline? Like all the way to the lake? The answer might surprise you! Now excuse me I have to go start my day drinking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:We have the housing. It's sitting vacant. There is more vacant housing in the USA than houseless people. More like Mr. Naive! There are many homeless who should not get the vacant housing because all they will do is shoot up heroin and make the place a hazard to life. I had a tenant like that recently and she made it incredibly dangerous (caught the place on fire multiple times, kids almost stepping on her discarded needles, caught stealing packages from everyone else to fund her habit, smoking indoors and triggering the asthma of the teen in the unit above, associates she invited hid loaded firearms under the porch that children could have discovered, junkies breaking into (and out of!) the apartment at all hours, I could go on). I get that maybe she's a victim of capitalism or whatever CSPAM would call it, but she was also a tremendous shitbag with no regard for human life, who needs to go to rehab and fuckin' stay there. My point is free unsupervised housing would be a huge disservice to a lot of homeless and anyone in their vicinity. Would you walk up to a guy shooting up in the alley like "oh gee poor you, here's $10000"? The guy would be dead in a couple days and it would be your fault. That's why I had to pay my tenant "cash for keys" to leave, but in installments so it didn't all go up her arm at once. fake edit: I mean jeez did you even watch the wire, all they did with the abandoned rowhouses was OD to death and stash corpses there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:fake edit: I mean jeez did you even watch the wire, all they did with the abandoned rowhouses was OD to death and stash corpses there. And also the family of kids where the oldest at 14 or so is raising the rest of them, but iirc gets involved with gang stuff to try to better provide but gets killed as a result. The building had a "warning: may contain dangerous trapped animals" sign or something as one of the most in your face blatant messages I could think of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:We have the housing. It's sitting vacant. There is more vacant housing in the USA than houseless people. Where are they? That's a fun statistic, but it ignores the logistics of it. These vacant houses aren't necessarily all in the right place. A vacant cabin 100 miles from a city, or a vacant mansion in Beverly Hills, is worthless for housing homeless people. One has no access to services/health care/jobs, the other is in an area that has a cost of living so high that you can really only afford to live there if you can actually buy the house. More importantly, even if they are in affordable places with all those things, they're not going to be equally distributed. So now you're talking about relocating people several cities away, or even states away. All of which dovetails nicely in to: therobit posted:Anyone who has seen the encampments in Portland can understand why someone doesn’t want that moving next door. We have literal open air chop shops and the number of car and catalytic converter thefts is absurd. Putting a roof over someone's head is only step 1. People need stable employment, access to services, access to affordable health care, schools for their kids, transportation, etc. etc. The list goes on, and just throwing people in an RV or a hotel isn't going to solve the rest of those problems overnight. Housing people for cheap looks good on paper and gives you something to brag about on the campaign trail. But it takes more than that to meaningfully bring people out of poverty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Unfortunately it never gets beyond step 0.5 for some reason. Who could predict that our politicians lack the courage to make the case for unpopular policies?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:More like Mr. Naive! Luckily for you policy is generally set by shithead landlords who would be delighted to see addicted people die in the streets rather than risk any loss of parasitic income.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Loucks posted:Luckily for you policy is generally set by shithead landlords who would be delighted to see addicted people die in the streets rather than risk any loss of parasitic income. The solution to addicts and the mentally ill is not "Free housing! Done!" In fact it's been shown over and over again that it doesn't work. It provides poor outcomes not only for the person being "helped" but everyone around them as well. The correct, but expensive and time consuming answer has a lot more to do with treatment, counseling, transition services, and ongoing care. Somewhere in there "free housing" works, but it's nowhere close to step 1 and definitely not a solution in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Motronic posted:The solution to addicts and the mentally ill is not "Free housing! Done!" Luckily no one at all is arguing this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Loucks posted:Luckily no one at all is arguing this. Oh, you're just being super brave by speaking up on your position against landlords. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Oh, you're just being super brave by speaking up on your position against landlords. Got it. I’m definitely speaking up on my position against Zero VGS, who took “There is more vacant housing in the USA than houseless people,” and went on a rant about how his evil tenant being addicted to hard drugs is evidence that giving every homeless person “free unsupervised housing” or $10000 would not be good policy despite literally no one suggesting anything of the sort. And yes, landlords are scum. Doesn’t take much bravery to point out the obvious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Loucks posted:And yes, landlords are scum. Doesn’t take much bravery to point out the obvious. It must be wonderful to be so privileged as to always have been able to afford to buy a home or condo at any point in your life where you needed housing, and quickly sell and buy another one if you had to move around for jobs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Motronic posted:It must be wonderful to be so privileged as to always have been able to afford to buy a home or condo at any point in your life where you needed housing, and quickly sell and buy another one if you had to move around for jobs. Only wealthy people believe that landlords are parasites, whereas people forced into renting understand that landlords are good and kind people generously providing shelter to the poor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Lots of extremely brave goons itt
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Loucks posted:I’m definitely speaking up on my position against Zero VGS, who took “There is more vacant housing in the USA than houseless people,” and went on a rant about how his evil tenant being addicted to hard drugs is evidence that giving every homeless person “free unsupervised housing” or $10000 would not be good policy despite literally no one suggesting anything of the sort. Homeboy posted "It's free real estate!" multiple times as some kind of proposed solution without any amplifying information, so I gave some pragmatic context as to why it might not be so simple. You should channel more of that towards the people who decided to market oxycontins as Adult Skittles, I'm just the symptom and will volunteer for the guillotine after you chop through all of them first. I want addicted people to get treatment, but if they refuse it (and some always will, especially problematic is "dual diagnosis" where people are mentally ill and addicted at the same time, I worked at such a facility for years) we need to be more responsible in how we subsidize/enable their shenanigans. As for parasitic income, I'd say I more than earned it in having to personally deal with that list of grievances I rattled off. The tenant in question had a voucher that paid 100% of their rent anyway so you probably paid me more than her, thanks comrade. I know better these days to mention any landlording in GBS etc, but it blows my mind that we're doing obligatory "landlords are scum" in the lawyers thread of all places, lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 22:04
|
|