Tiny Houses for the Homeless in Los Angeles A person wants to help the homeless people he needs to wear a bullet proof vest
Confronted by seeing someone homeless while visiting us in Phoenix, always remarked they are homeless "through no fault of their own". Her thinking was, government ought to house them. Very strict Liberal. My neighbor, hearing of that, shook his head and remarked, "No fault of their own? Then whose fault is it when folks are NOT homeless?" Frank
I haven't watched the video because I am waiting for someone at the Portland airport and am on my iPhone, but I have followed some of the stories about tiny houses for the homeless and the ones I have seen involved setting these houses up in public places. While I believe that building codes should be flexible enough to accommodate tiny houses or other alternative homes for the homeless, I do have a problem with appropriating public spaces for such purposes because this deprives other members of the public of the use of this space.
Well, I used to work with the homeless in Ft. Worth, Texas. Not all homeless, but those that sought shelter in one of the county's largest shelter. Most were there because of substance abuse, inability to find work after prison, or mental illness. It was a rough group of people. Fortunately, however, those that were mentally ill were serviced by a local agency that would restart their medicines and would attempt to locate any nearby relatives.
I'm sorry to say this for this might offend some people. Being homeless is primarily the fault of the homeless. That's how I look at it. In the olden days, it was a shame to be a squatter - that's the term used to denote people who living in another one's property without permission. And the property can be private or public like the riverbank or even the area under the bridge. In the recent years, the media had changed the name from squatters they are now called informal settlers. Can you see the twist? So now it is not a shame to be a squatter because it's cute to be called informal settlers albeit those homeless are even proud of their situation. The government has a housing program that is maybe being abused. It's a long story but I will try to compress it. A homeless family is given a house that they have to pay in very affordable installments. And when there is no available housing, the government provides money for rental. Now, what happens next? Check the awarded house and the rented home, the homeless are gone. The awarded house is sold and the rented home is abandoned. The homeless are back in the streets with money in their pockets courtesy of the government's housing program. It's really outrageous but it's happening in Metro Manila.
It is true that some homeless people like being homeless. They enjoy not punching a clock and feeling free. Many of them know where and when free food is being handed out in the city and are getting food in their stomach's twice a day. That being said, I have seen them beat up, their medication and money stolen, and in the emergency room from heat exhaustion. Being homeless is a tough, tough way to live.
Yes, I agree there is much to be repaired in the way we distribute the limited funds that our taxes are meant for. Houston, Texas has a very large homeless population, many of which are on the streets because it is where they wish to be, but I also see the disabled, and families with children. So I would donate to a program such as this if one were available here, especially when I see such sight as theses below.
Not having a roof over one's head Sleeping in the street, in a cardboard box, on a park bench Having to wash in a public restroom or live with your own stench. Wearing the same dirty smelly clothes day in, day out. No heat in winter, no AC in summer Raiding dumpsters for food because the meal at church/Salvation Army wasn't enough. Being ignored and shunned Yeah, that's a great life. They must enjoy it. And some have abused the system so it's okay to paint them all with the same broad brush.
Snipped from today's NY times... ''A battery of laws that effectively criminalize homelessness is sweeping the nation, embraced by places like Orlando, Fla.; Santa Cruz, Calif.; and Manchester, N.H. By the end of 2014, 100 cities had made it a crime to sit on a sidewalk, a 43 percent increase over 2011, according to a survey of 187 major American cities by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. The number of cities that banned sleeping in cars jumped to 81 from 37 during that same period. There have been laws outlawing panhandling and authorizing the removal of tent camps.'' Read the whole article here... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/u...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news This is a very interesting article...we don't as far as I know have any of this being implemented in the UK...yet..I'd be interested in everyones' views..are you for or against preventing the homeless from sitting and sleeping in public areas ..or do you think it's just being hidden away in highly profitable tourist tourist areas in the USA?
I have no answer for the homeless problem but I do think people do not want to sleep in a cardboard box. They are making many laws against people helping like one minister was put in jail for giving food for the homeless. If the government does not want to help stop picking on the people that will. I can see both sides when a person losses all through job loss, or other things and the frustration of not getting another job because there are many people looking for those few jobs. It gets to a point of just giving up. If we can turn those people around it would be great first we need employment even if it is a make work project like cleaning the countryside.
There are always two sides to everything, and homelessness is something that we are seeing more and more of , it seems like. People who lose their job cannot make their house payment, especially if they bought during the housing bubble when loans were pretty easy for anyone with a job to get, and buy a new home, and maybe even a new car or SUV. When they lost their homes, then it was even more impossible for them to find another job, and whole families ended up living in what is now called "tent cities". At the same time, their repossessed house would sit empty, and maybe vandalized, because now people could not get loans to buy a house. Sometimes the banks will work with these people, and sometimes not. On the other side of the story,there are people who seem content to sleep in rescue missions, and do not really want to get a job or have the responsibility of living on their own Some of these are the ones you see sitting on some corner or near a store or cafe and holding a sign for donations. Even worse, some of those people actually have homes that they go home to after their "workday" of sitting around holding out the sign. Some of these people make hundreds of dollars each week, especially when they involve a mother and child asking for help. If you look closely at the second picture that @Ina I. Wonder posted, you can see that the little girl is scrubbed and clean, and it looks like she is wearing a pretty white blouse. I would guess that this child is not homeless, and is simply being used to get more people to hand the mother some money because she touches people's hearts. Her sign looks like it is made of fresh cardboard, not something that was found somewhere and made into a sign, and the lettering on her sign is very well-done also. There is just no eay answer to the situation of homelesness, and sometimes it is hard to tell which ones actually need help, and are not getting it.
What's that old saying? " There but for the grace of God go I." There are a whole lot of people who are only a few paychecks from the street.
And you can be sure NONE of them would enjoy being homeless - contrary to what some suggest. Foreclosure/eviction, repossession of cars and furniture, utility shutoffs, bad credit......to suggest that someone enjoys those things is preposterous.
Absolutes are nearly always wrong. People are individuals and generalizations about entire groups of people are pretty much never accurate. In this case, I have known homeless people who were content to be homeless, or at least sufficiently content so as not to want to go out of their way to get out of that situation. Given that I don't go out to interview homeless people, and yet have come across people who were voluntarily homeless, my assumption is that there are quite a few people who wouldn't take a job if it was offered to them. Given that there are numerous government and quasi-government programs that take money from working people in order to hand it over to those who aren't working, there are an even larger number of people who would be homeless if their situation were dependent on their own efforts, and who live in government housing and are supplied with better food and toys than working people were able to afford not so long ago.