Studies have shown time and again that providing dignity through housing is tremendously helpful for homeless and otherwise displaced people. Housing IS part of the solution. I should elaborate that we have MORE THAN ENOUGH empty housing stock to house our homeless population.

The problem is that shitboxes like shown in the article above are NOT dignifying, nor helpful in the fight for aiding our homeless and displaced populations.

Many homeless people are incapable of caring for themselves. Most are mentally ill, or addicts. Put them in a house, it will become a drop house faster than they will become average suburbanites. I problem solve for the world that is, not the world that I wish was. That’s the problem with “progressive” types. Human behavior is not monochrome. Some humans are anti social,

,mentally ill, etc…for a number of reasons. Sure there are homeless people who are just down on their luck. For them, housing can be a solution. For the guy pissing down the subway stair well and singing while cat calling passerby….not gonna work. That’s a real person who I has the pleasure of seeing last time I was in nyc. Are we going to pretend that all the homeless folks are like Will Smith in that movie?

Take a walk down skid row and then come talk to me. You will likely have a different perspective after being robbed every 10 ft.

So if you want to approach a design project, have a clear and accurate understanding of the constraints. If you are working off of fantasy land liberal ideology constraints…likely won’t get good results…

I was going to write a long response about how frat boys and finance bros tend to have crippling addiction issues, and destroy property that they don't own regularly, but then I realized there's no talking sense to someone who sees homeless people as inherently degenerate and not worthy of housing "because they'll instantly destroy it".

Where did I say that?

"Put them in a house, it will become a drop house faster than they will become average suburbanites."

- x-jla

Is this not true? Do you know the percentage of homeless people addicted to drugs? Mentally ill?

I don't know the percentage, and neither do you. But what I do know is that a large portion of homeless or displaced people are simply those who were victims of the system. We saw this here in my home state, where families find themselves on the street because their house was washed away in Hurricane Ian.

Many are also victims of social inequity and prejudice, being thrown out by their families as teenagers (and thus are displaced minors) because they are members of the LGBT+ community.

You can view homeless people as wild animals all you want, X, but it won't solve their problems any more than the countless times police have ripped away their tents and duffel bags, pushed them into the Mojave desert, or escorted them to these public art pieces masquerading as charity housing.

That’s a portion, those folks could benefit from housing, but a larger portion of the homeless are chronically homeless. 30% are mentally ill, and 50% are addicts. It’s not a small portion.

Did you know that with easy access to medication, nearly all people who are disenfranchised as "mentally ill" would be able to be happy and amenable members of society? We take away their ability to access medicine, then cast them to the streets and scoff and say "Oh well, I guess this is just how they are!"... And by "we", obviously I mean people like you.

I’m being a realist. Medicine is not always entirely effective. Drug addiction is not that easy to cure. Anti social behaviors are not that easy to just change. And I am not saying to not fox the problems. I’m saying that you have to drop the fantasy narrative that the homeless crisis is a housing problem, and that the homeless are going to be able to upkeep themselves, a house, and a community. It’s simply untrue. Sugar coating reality is not compassionate, it’s cowardly and avoids the problems. They need support and supervision primarily. Then they need purpose, responsibility, and meaning. Once they get on track, then a house. But to think that you can pluck homeless off the streets and drop them in a house…not gonna work.

I know from experience with family members. This is a process that takes years…

Chronically homeless make up 25% of the homeless population. 50% of 25% is 12.5% of the homeless population. You seem to be skewing the numbers to fit a myth and to rationalize a sociopathic attitude.

https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf

That number was for all homeless. You are doing woke math.

The fact that you use the term "woke" immediately reveals your intent when discussing the solutions and pitfalls of architecture for the homeless and displaced.

Why, is that not a real thing?

And I think I agree with your main premise critique about this particular project

Just don’t agree with the solutions you proposed…like using existing housing stock.

That number was for all homeless. You are doing woke math.

1. 12 year old data. 2023-2011=12

2. The statistics refer to sheltered homeless. In 2010 60% of the homeless population was sheltered (HUD). 34.7% of 60% = 20.8%. Your data.

Your baseless and counterintuitive assumptions 1)In the last 12 years drugs and mental illness went down. 2) the rate of addiction and illness is lower for the people on the streets than those houses. Yes. That stat is for all. That’s what I said.

“Chronically homeless make up 25% of the homeless population. 50% of 25% is 12.5% of the homeless population. You seem to be skewing the numbers to fit a myth and to rationalize a sociopathic attitude.”. Also “that number was for all homeless”. You folks will do anything to maintain the narrative. It’s why nothing will ever get done.

You are stating facts not in evidence. It is your source. It is not my fault that you can't read.

I am done here.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-07/homeless-population-mental-illness-disability

^You Can read or put your head in the sand and cry that the universe doesn’t follow the narrative of the woke.

This in no way implies that they don’t deserve help. It simply acknowledges a reality that runs counter to narrative that a house will solve the problem. The mentally I’ll being stuffed in a house by themselves is a danger to them and others. Not a solution. Have you been around addicts? Have you seen how self destructive they are? How they destroy their property, start fires, etc? These people need shelter in facilities, or are better off out in the streets where they are at least in the public view.

To answer question 3, Rick, I'd address those people (you) by telling them (you) to grow the fuck up, and that other individuals don't live for your personal convenience and comfort. Your disdain is a glaring defect in your own fettered mind, not a public emergency for other people to solve.

Some sources that aren't 12 years old regarding characteristics of homeless people. 

https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/#:~:text=In%20January%202020%20%2C%20there%20were,and%20in%20shelters%20in%20America.&text=Most%20were%20individuals%20(70%20percent,%2C%20racial%2C%20and%20ethnic%20group.

The tenants of this housing may be transient, but that doesn't mean the houses are temporary. Given the photos and diagrams on Lehrer Architects' website, it looks to me that the buildings are to occupy the site permanently. I'm mostly mad because, optically, the permanent presence of sheds that are no larger than an ADA water closet only gives justification to the sentiment that "Look we solved the homeless problem", when all that fundamentally happened is that they pushed a vulnerable population into a small, rigid shelter that doesn't really solve any of the issues of the tents, but I guess it isn't as offensive to the general public

I could always be wrong, in which case I'm happy to rescind my complaints.

No, not false. There is far more vacant housing across the US than there are homeless people. This includes vacation homes, and properties that are owned but not occupied by any tenant. The root of homelessness lies in how we as a society value housing as a commodity, and not as a fundamental need.

So what do you do with a vacant house? Someone obviously owns that property no?

Shortage of affordable housing is more accurate. Lack of access to alternative funding/borrowing also a concern but none of these are problems architects can solve unless we either design-build neighbourhoods or open up our own loan shark business.

X, our dirty communist municipal government introduced a vacant unit tax in hope that it forces owners to return the units to the rental market. Brand new for 2023 so we'll see how many 2k/month basement apartments hit the market.

Ahh Taxes-the duct tape of government.

But you took the words out of my mouth, because without communism you can’t really take things that don’t belong to you and give them to people deemed more deserving. That requires police force and more centralized power over the economy. Hey, maybe the dreams of the left will come true and all the entrepreneurs and investors will be run out of town. Surly then a utopia of the down n out will naturally manifest. A summer of love.

They are actually this: https://palletshelter.com/products/shelter-64/

I recall seeing something on this that they actually cost like $7,500. So that's roughly 40k for install, site, utilities, offsite, and profit/overhead for the contractor... which... honestly might not be so absurd if the infrastructure in the site just didn't really exist. I've worked on similar things and it's always like that with the cost of things the way they are these days, though maybe not quite that high... 

Yeah these are $7,500 retail, whereas the project in question cost $35,000 per unit.

plenty of those here in pdx -- not ideal, but better to be grouped into a supervised protected enclave with appropriate collective health/hygiene facilities...the camp spots here around town are unhealthful (i have other words for them, but that is probably the most helpful word)

sameolddoctor wrote: 

"Yeah these are $7,500 retail, whereas the project in question cost $35,000 per unit."

The site had no infrastructure or utilities.  Add in the electrical and plumbing hook ups for each unit plus all the hook up fees required by the city and the cost isn't unreasonable.  

SOD! Are you implying that the state sucks at delivery? Home Depot is evil! Bad bad free market! The state can deliver a shed for 50k and that requires more taxes so it’s better obviously!

Here’s what you do. You train the homeless to build their own community. You allocate derelict land and let them use it with the guidance of professional builders and volunteers. That’s how you create a sense of pride and accomplishment and some skills. That’s 1/2 the problem solved right there. Giving things away does not solve disease of despair. People need to feel purpose, responsibility, usefulness.

The homeless are not a pet to be housed. They need what you need. Same thing.

Chad, i dont think the hookups cost that much. Seems like most of the project budget went to the fatcat "City architects" that make 180k + benefits for working form 7am to 3pm

^Who are you even referring to as "city architects" here? Because that description and accusation of spending seems unreconcilable with real people 

sameolddoctor wrote:

"Chad, i dont think the hookups cost that much. Seems like most of the project budget went to the fatcat "City architects" that make 180k + benefits for working form 7am to 3pm"

The average water and sewer hook up fee for a single family home where I live is $2,000.  For a commercial building it's $10k.  

How many units where there again?  

So if these qualify as a single family home, the max should be $7,500 + $2,000 = $9,500 per unit, not $50,000. Now I am sure this is not Lehrer's fault, but just pointing out how tax dollars are wasted.

You're forgetting the cost of the infrastructure, site improvements, and the remaining utility hook ups. For example: water, sewer, gas, and electric hook ups would cost around $9k for a single unit. More if the development is using renewables or is sprinkled. Things get more expensive if the utility providers and AHJ say this is a commercial development and require units to be grouped together for utility hook ups.  

Then it’s inefficient at best psf. May as well build a multi unit facility. That’s 781.5$ psf.

Or maybe that’s good for CA standards. Idk

9k + 7.5k

I meant 9k + 7.5k

Let me try again. I mean 9,000 $ + 7,500 $ is still less than 50,000$ per unit. Is archinect censoring this ? lol

Again - you're not taking into account the cost of the site improvements. The average cost (in my area) for site improvements (running utilities, streets, ect) is around $10k per single family house. How many units are on each site?

$7,500 unit cost

$9,000 utility hook ups

$10,000 site improvements

$26,500 cost per unit in Grand Junction,CO prices.

This is without the cost of the land.  

Now consider that the LA is around 75% more costly to build in than Grand Junction . . . . .

10k site improvements for a single family home, not for a very tiny home depot home

Site improvements = streets, curbs, sidewalks, infrastructure, grading, storm water, ect. If 50 tiny homes fit where five regular single family homes would then the amount of work would be much increased for the 50 tiny homes.

Apparently I have been. This publication is the first I've personally read about using tiny houses as homeless housing (of course I've heard it brought up as a suggestion before). I'm just particularly disappointed that a firm claiming to be on the side of social justice and fighting inequity would look at this "solution" as any sort of victory.

Lol. They are a bougie, for-profit Silver Lake-based design firm, and their first bespeckled Tiny Home project opened up :checks notes: two years ago (and posted to Archinect, IIRC). It's a PR-op and a salesman using buzz words - cold world out there, I know.......

On principle, I have no problem with people voluntarily building their own tiny houses. The issue I have is when it's been decided by a higher authority that, "due to the cost, we've decided it's in everyone's best interest that these people are put into tiny houses". Just seems to me like a way for wealthy society to tell poor people to take up less space.

I do agree that doing something is better than nothing. I only wish we wouldn't laud tiny houses as a victorious solution, when they are really an overwhelming statement of class crisis.

The biggest issue I see is the huge glut of single-family housing. This is a very American ideal. The rest of the world has gone a long way towards embracing denser housing types, but also multigenerational housing models that allow for those less fortunate or suffering from mental health issues, aging etc. to be kept within the community that they need to help support them. But alas this is America where you fight for yourself. And once you make it you make you don't help others. Every one of those people on the street has had a parent, a relative, a friend or a partner who has turned their back on them. And now we expect society to pick up the slack when it is far easier for someone who is associated already to provide assistance. We should be doing everything we can to help people help their own people. We need to feel some responsibility for our friends and family and our society should empower the people who can help rather than the people who need help but can't help themselves for whatever reason .

I think it takes both. I see no reason why society should abandon those people whose families failed them. There's a rampant homeless problem within the LGBT+ community, especially concerning when talking about the adolescents who are homeless by circumstance of evading abuse. Should we shame their families who disown their children because of their identities? Yes. Should we also help uplift those who find themselves homeless in this situation? Yes, of course.

Agreed, all options should be on the table. In the case of the couple who is capable and willing to build their own house. Why can't there be a place for them to do that? How about a family member back yard? How about the dearth of BLM land our country has? We give out next-to-free leases for that land to oil companies because it "creates" jobs. Why not offer cheap leases to people who could homestead the land? Historically the people who were cast out of society founded a large part of this country.

" The rest of the world has gone a long way towards embracing denser housing types."

Like apartments? There are lots of low income housing projects happening in LA right now too. They cost at least 10x as much per unit as these (admittedly housing 2-4x as many people) and take 3x as long to build, are harder to find space for, etc. Why not do both and move people from one to the other… almost like a bridge between homelessness and permanent housing… a bridge housing. Oh wait.

Yeah, it's a bridge, but not a strong one. It lacks the production of equity for any party and as such will never be sustainable. 5 years from now, when those structures have been beaten to shit, no one wins, except maybe the people who have managed to transition through there. Not saying it's not helping or needed. Just that while we have architects focused on things like that there are larger systemic issues that architects or at least planners have a real opportunity to address.

I think there's an easy test to determine if your solution to homelessness has "human dignity". All one has to do is ask oneself "If given the choice, would *I* be okay with living here?" And if the answer is "No, not unless I was forced to", then that solution is a bad one. Instead of making "temporary housing", why not allow the homeless population to continue living in their auto-constructed tent encampments, in the tents that they own? If you build better permanent housing, they'll naturally leave their tents behind if you give them a good enough replacement.

JL - I just spent over a week in LA and area as a tourist architect, and I saw a grand total of ONE crane the entire time. It felt like the entire construction industry, aside from roads, had collapsed. Then again my reference is Toronto, where there's probably 80 to 100 cranes in operation all the time. In comparison,

You know, it's funny you call me a guttersnipe, given that the word was once a common way to refer to... well.... homeless people.

That said, Lehrer Architects is not, in fact, doing good work here. They're taking previously self-sufficient auto-constructed encampments of tents (lightweight, transportable, OWNED by the homeless... but also ugly to wealthy people), and replacing those with these 64-square-foot garden sheds (which are permanently fixed, critically NOT OWNED by their tenants, and are fundamentally demeaning to the people who may inhabit them).

Like, just say you hate homeless people, but love collecting a paycheck to play savior. It's much more honest than saying you're "providing human dignity through shelter" or whatever nonsense.

You’re selling living on the street in a tent harder than LOHA is selling this project. Do you have a bunch of Bass Pro Shop stock or something?

No, actually, I'm just really passionate about camping.

jimblake wrote:

 "Making offensive, rude, ad hominem comments in a public forum is simply more of the filth Lehrer Architects has made a bold, thoughtful effort to combat. "

 Jovan has done nothing of the sort. His opinion differs from yours. You may not like it but it’s not offensive, rude, or an ad hominem. Furthermore Lehrer Architects has not made a bold or thoughtful effort to combat anything. They are an architectural firm hired to do a job.

 "If Lehrer shelters help 10% of the homeless population that's better than nothing. Lehrer architects make no claim to be alleviating any of the countless causes of homelessness, they are architects transforming abandoned parcels into decent places to wash up and eat out of the elements. "

The project isn’t helping 10% of the homeless population of that area. It’s not even providing temporary housing for 10% of the homeless population. Lehrer is making claims that their work is alleviating and solving the homeless problem.  It's not. 

 "Lehrer isn't Jesus, he is a thoughtful, talented architect who has earned respect. "

 That’s partially true. Lehere deserves respect for their design talents on some of their projects. 

 "This article is the nasty spew of a guttersnipe. "

No. It’s just someone with a different opinion than you. For you to take to name calling as a response shows you are inarticulate and immature.

More pertinently, the biggest problem with the tent housing that this project (and others like it) tries to solve is the issue of tents not being permanent domiciles.

The good side of these tiny houses is that they allow residents to have a postal address, and a lockable place to store their belongings while they try to secure permanent housing. 

The bad side, however, is that this temporary housing exists in a place (L.A.) where permanent housing is scarce and out of reach for those of nearly (if not entirely) $0 income. Ergo, it's a precarious place to live in hopes that you can find another place before you get kicked out for staying too long.

In addition to that, a huge difference between these tiny houses and the auto-constructed tent encampments is that the former is controlled by a larger entity that gets to decide who lives there, and for how long. 

The tents are owned by individual homeless people who can take advantage of that shelter for as long as they please, assuming they don't get beaten and imprisoned by the police. 

My biggest issue here is one of state violence and control. The tents are a democratic, bottom-up found solution to temporary shelter. The tiny houses are an autocratic, top-down imposed solution. Neither of them are great or sustainable long term, but I will defend the democratic tent encampments over the sentiments of "we can take better care of them than they can for themselves" attitude any day of the week.

Like I said, a certain degree of homelessness needs to be accepted, and the public infrastructure needs to accommodate it. This means things like allocation of areas for camping, providing public washrooms, providing bench design that allows for sleeping, providing outdoor space heating, misting for hot weather, security, etc etc. these are easy things that can become part of the public realm, but instead we pretend to “solve” a problem that is just a pure reality of urban life. Recognize that the homeless are part of the public, and design urban infrastructure with them in mind. That’s all I’m saying. The folks experiencing temporary or circumstantial homelessness, which is a growing group, should have shelters with support staff to get them on their path to financial and mental self sufficiency.

But you can’t cure something like homelessness entirely. You can reduce it. You can’t solve it. Don’t sacrifice the good for the perfect.

Much of the public nuisance that they create is a matter of lousy urban design that fails to understand the constraints. And we don’t need soft language. It’s really useless.

A few of the more distasteful things about this project, highlighted from the Curbed article: 

"Yards from the new houses, along the embankment that runs parallel to the freeway, longtime residents had built their own tiny homes with beds, furnishings, and doors that locked." 

"[...]there was growing anxiety that the residents of the informal village who opted not to trade their own shelter for a tiny home, or who still have reservations about moving in, would be forced out."

Particularly disgusting:

"The ribbon-cutting with the mayor and the councilmember would be the first in a string of events — including a “sleepover” scheduled at the village for that weekend, which offered donors an opportunity to stay overnight in the tiny homes, complete with dinner and live entertainment. It was being billed as the 'ultimate date night.'"

This gets straight to the point of "social justice" firms like Lehrer simply bending the knee to capitalist enterprise:

"In fact, [Lehrer] made adjustments to the site plan after the developers of a new shopping center across the street asked the architects to move the [tiny homes] farther back on the property so they would not be in view of Trader Joe’s shoppers."

And here's the ultimate bad that comes out of letting cities think they're doing anything good by providing shitboxes as "housing" for homeless people:

"Once the city has created enough beds to make temporary offers of shelter to a certain percentage of homeless residents, it can start to enforce its ban on sleeping in public spaces, particularly in parks, which some councilmembers say is the point."

Part of the beauty of the tents is that they're politically charged. You can't hide it away and say "Oh see it's pretty now". Tents are democratic. They're auto-constructed. They're individual personal property. Projects like these tiny house villages are just another notch on the belt of criminalizing people for being poor.

Yes, the sweeps and sleepover... it's revolting. No chance Lehrer principals and project managers aren't aware of these project-adjacent events and issues. Yet they continue to "lead" this sector of the industry.

"The Sleepover" is truly disgusting. Can't even propose that to your run-of-the-mill developer or residential client.

For the architect to watch something like that unfold, and not see the project as anything more than a clear failure to achieve its goals, is shocking to me. Particularly in dealing with at-risk and marginalized groups, I have no qualms in lambasting architects who obviously fail to recognize or address this disastrous of a reception and use of their work.

Why would the architects bring negative attention to their project? Why would they burn their bridge with an important client? Why would they attract negative attention on purpose? Or put another way, what planet do you live on that any of that would be normal? You seem to have zero understanding of how this stuff works.

I find it quite easy when the "solution" in question is so obviously a front for the tried and true "criminalize the existence of poverty and then make yourself the hero by glamorizing the problem you created". See my sparknotes of the Curbed article just above this comment.

Proto, this isn't a start. History exists. These "solutions" aren't new. 

In good faith, it's common to dismiss peoples' anger in response to gross neglect and corruption on the part of our public institutions out of discomfort and hopelessness. Confront your emotions, I promise it's much more rewarding to be angry and engage. 

This sort of village is helping here in Portland, OR. Does everyone like them? No. But no better solution has been achieved to date. This city has been a testing bed for bleeding heart liberal ideas to deal with homelessness; so much so that the city has historically attracted people who want to get services and still live outside. Does the self-congratulatory part help? No, but the villages are clean and safe for those who have been able to get into them, even if they aren't close to a traditional built structure. And they were put up quickly to deal with the current problem of huge numbers of people outside.

Portland certainly is not perfect, although it does try very hard. Curiously, no city has entertained the possibility that there is a portion (however large or small) of the homeless population that simply do not want to have a permanent house, and would much rather see their city not consider them criminals for choosing to live outside. 

The idea that we must defeat the "problem of huge numbers of people outside" is itself the problem. Again, ask yourself "If given a choice, would I like to live in one of those 64-square-foot garden sheds?" If the answer is no, why would you suggest that we force homeless people into them?

I actually did street outreach in Portland many years ago, it really is a unique municipality for its adoption of these and other "progressive" approaches decades before anyone else. I hear from friends that the public may cauterize that leak soon, but that's another issue entirely. 

There was a beloved legal tent lot on Burnside for many years that (from what I recall) was self-funded and self-governed, even had a pantry. This is where I think we make another mistake as architects: the program, heck, even the buildings can look exactly the same but enact very different politics. 

As an Angelino now, these tiny home villages anger me because they're a tool for public servants to evade duty and appease private property owners. It's one thing for communities to autonomously provide for themselves with whatever means they have, it's another thing for a wealthy city government to provide the same infrastructure, sans dignity and plus police. I agree they're probably helping some people out, and I'm glad for that. I'm angry because there's quite a lot of other stuff going on, just out of frame.

Have you ever been homeless? I have not, exactly, though I have spent time living in my vehicle--when working as a carpenter for ultra-wealthy people in a resort community that had no affordable housing available. And I spent one summer in my early 20s living in a shed that looks just like one of those pictured.

I do know a few unhoused people and they prize their autonomy, and would be reasonably happy living in their tent villages if they weren't raided by police regularly, if they had a place to securely store valuables and if they had an address for receiving mail.

That is a great idea. Let's give homeless people a mailbox and a locker to store their valuables. Problem solved. Brilliant beyond belief! 

And a plot of land they can use, conveniently located to services and public transportation.

I realize you are probably responding sarcastically; what we really need is full societal overhaul, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. But a large locker, a mailbox and a plot of land would go a long way toward addressing the problem, more than simply providing some overly colorful sheds to live in. 

Actually WG you correct. The most important aspect of shelter for the homeless is a fixed address. You can't get a job without one. This is one of the reasons that housing first works and projects like this don't.

*are correct*

Orhan, all of the problems you bring up are indeed real problems that face unhoused people, but none of those preclude tent living. What I would ask *you* is why you think it's so important to force people not to live in tents? Why must everyone be placed into an authority-owned tiny house, with all of their implied impositions, instead of being allowed the autonomy of tent-living, while also providing them societal access to a postal address, and clean bathing facilities, WITHOUT the strings attached? The fact is that we (as a society, and our governmental structures) oddly feel the need to impose our will onto low- or no-income people, whether it's unhoused people living in tents, or its impoverished people living in food stamps. Why do we feel that we have to boss them around, and that we know better than they do what their needs are?

Ultimately, I stand for equal personal property rights. 

I own (albeit with a mortgage) my house. It's my personal property. I paid for it, and (barring a few things) I can't be told by any entity how I'm allowed to live in my house. Fundamentally, this is how many unhoused people operate with their tents. It's their personal property that they acquired and own. They have autonomy to do with their tent what they choose.

I propose we either fully subsidize the construction of ACTUAL dignified places for unhoused people to have, in which they actively own their home, with none of these communal rules attached (such as the one posted in the article, where residents of the village community are searched on entry), 

OR 

Allow people to continue living in their tents (i.e. their personal property), while striving to provide communal services to them to shorten the gap between what you or I are afforded and what unhoused people currently aren't (such as safety from the police, access to clean hygiene facilities free of charge, access to job opportunities without discrimination, etc.).

Once again, as I've presented multiple times in this thread, I ask you a question: Would YOU, given the choice, live in one of these 64-square foot sheds, giving up your autonomy and many freedoms? Because if you hesitate to answer yes, then maybe this is not a fair solution to propose for other people.

Or, you know, this is like renting, which many, many people do. You're all over the place with your argument. Host because it doesn't solve every single problem in a way that you approve of, doesn't mean it's not forward progress

Idk about you but I've never lived in an apartment where I have to be searched before being allowed to enter my apartment. I've also never been in a position where the place I was already living was essentially bulldozed to make room for a new apartment complex, compelling me to move elsewhere while being treated as a savage charity case.

There is a annoying unwillingness to differentiate between different types of homelessness. If you can’t come to terms with that because of some brain barrier of political correctness, you won’t be able to understand the problem. If you don’t understand the problem, you can’t solve it. Sure, you have some people who lost a job, and lost their apartment. Then you have others who got kicked out of their elderly mothers house for ripping all of the copper pipes out for the 10th time to buy meth.

The victim of the system narrative does not cover the breath of the problem. Primarily, you have to address the most dire and chronic form of homelessness because that’s the most critical. But, I hate to break it to you, we are going to see a huge rise in despair and homelessness in the coming decades. There will be a strong correlation between the rate or automation and the rate of homelessness, and if you think housing will solve that, you don’t understand the human condition. We MUST find ways to give purpose to folks that falls outside of the typical markets. We need to rethink “currency”. How can we find things to make people feel useful and interdependent on their community? Homelessness is a symptom of a disease. That disease is depression and a total loss of hope and self value. I think architecture can maybe have a place in a solution, just not in the ways being proposed.

So what i see here is architects acting like big pharma…looking for pills to calm symptoms of a disease that requires a holistic approach.

X, I really don't know what to say that I haven't said before: I can't engage with your arguments when you want to justify state violence against unhoused people with mental illness. You want to use the existence of SOME very mentally ill unhoused people as a way to continue marginalizing all of them. 

The increasing rate of homelessness is very much a product of late-stage capitalism exploiting people to the end that they are either forced -- or would rather spend the limited resources they have -- to live without the stability and permanence that's provided by traditional housing. Giving people "purpose outside of typical markets" doesn't mean anything. 

Ending homelessness requires engaging with the idea of creating housing that provides dignity and, most importantly, affords autonomy to its inhabitants, entirely divorced from the capitalist climate our world is currently experiencing.

I didn’t say those things, and you don’t know what you are talking about. “Capitalism” has had a net positive effect on poverty worldwide. This is an indisputable fact. But, “purpose outside of typical markets” is essentially a way to have people earn who can’t earn within the typical commercial system. For instance, Bob the recovered heroine addict gets housing and in exchange for
doing wellness checks on other homeless addicts. Jim gets housing but his duty is to maintain the garden.

So essentially I’m talking about a more bottom up commune like scenario where the homeless are empowered to build their own communities. Allocate space. Provide guidance and resources. Provide basic infrastructure. That’s the type of project I’d like to see.

In an effort to not be "all over the place," I'll regroup my thoughts and you tell me where you see a contradiction. 

1. Homelessness as an issue today is not about a lack of housing, PER SE. The amount of vacant housing in the name of capital greed is astounding in this country, and I'm sure in others). It's about a lack of SUITABLE housing (specifically, permanent housing at a reasonable price point that offers the same amenities and living qualities that are enjoyed by the average working citizen in that area. This is an issue that affects many people, and is one of the contributing factors that leads to homelessness (among other things, such as inadequate access to life-maintaining medications, or various forms of poverty, which are a whole topic in itself). 

2. There is a pervasive idea about unhoused people, that they have somehow personally failed in life, and that we must nanny them, as if they are children who cannot possibly conduct themselves as individuals if given the means to do so. It's seen in those patronizing YouTube and TikTok videos where someone films themselves making random unhoused people into blubbering charity cases. It's also seen in the creation of "tiny house villages", where we've deemed that these people can't possibly operate their own communities of their personally owned tents, and instead must be corralled into "designed" communities where they can be monitored, given curfews, scanned and searched (by metal detectors and by community officers). These are some examples of things you or I would never be compelled to do, whether in an apartment, an HOA condo, or a house, nor are these things required of unhoused people when they live in tent communities.

3. Instead of pouring tons of funding and public media into these autocratic tiny house villages, I feel that the unhoused community would be better served by providing safe and voluntary access to amenities that improve their quality of life, without taking away their agency and autonomy to act as the individual people they are. 

In the short term, to me, this means ending police raids on tent encampments, allowing tent encampments to have designated addresses or giving accessible means to a P.O. box for unhoused people who want them; and giving voluntary access to toilet and bathing facilities, as well as lockable storage (AGAIN, without the stipulations and compelled nanny rules I mentioned above). 

In the longer term, this means more and better subsidization of permanent housing that seeks to provide a quality of life that people (unhoused OR OTHERWISE) would be more than happy to choose freely (rather than choose by compulsion). People should not be considered criminals for choosing to live outside, and simultaneously, those who are seeking permanent, hard-walled shelter, should not be compelled to accept housing that would, in any other circumstance, become a gray area within the IRC.

Orhan, I did not assume anything or twist your words. I asked you a question and shared my thoughts. You seem to have a lot to say on the subject and I was curious what experience you are basing your thoughts on.

This is the comment that I wasn't sure about: "That is a great idea. Let's give homeless people a mailbox and a locker to store their valuables. Problem solved. Brilliant beyond belief!"

Perhaps you really are that excited about my proposal, but it's pretty simple and obvious, at least to me, so going over-the-top with accolades made me think you were being facetious. I'm still not sure.

I have not spent much time in NYC and none in LA, but I have lived in Boston and Seattle and seen their homeless problems up close. Even small Portland, Maine and tiny Augusta, Maine where I have also lived have issues with homelessness.

In the case of Augusta, it's outsized because they closed the state mental hospital with little provision for what the people housed there would do instead, so many of them took to the streets. Every city I've lived in has had homeless camps in wooded areas on the outskirts of the city, or sometimes in parks closer to downtown. There are also those who camp out on sidewalks and in alleys as well.

I don't think there is one solution that will help everyone, everywhere.

Building a solution requires a years long devotion to the project. A collaborative effort of professionals working with the community. Can’t swoop in with a cape and drop standard architecture solutions.

Citing a NYP article in an earnest attempt to discuss unhoused people is laughably absurd. I don't think that anyone in this thread, myself included, has discussed a "standard architectural solution" to homelessness.

He didn't cite a NYP article he cited an NYP opinion piece, which is even worse.

I wasn’t citing anything. I posted an article, not a citation. But Yeah, if it’s not on msnbc it didn’t happen.

Still waiting for the “correct think” media to redact all of the things they got wrong and lied about.

Jovan, yes you did discuss a “standard architectural solution”. Your solution seems to revolve around providing nicer than proposed housing. What I and others on here are saying is that is not a solution. Once again, the problem is not lack of housing. Lack of housing is the symptom of a deeper problem. I’m not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. It’s quite obvious to anyone who has ventured outside of the academic bubble and had any first hand experience with the outer world.

Can you please provide some numbers though on the amount of homeless on drugs or mentally ill? The sources that I posted weren’t approved by the ministry of truth or something…what numbers are you suggesting? 1% is on drugs, 99% premed victims of capitalism? I’m very curious what data is driving your assumptions that the homeless can be uprooted from the street and in a day or two maintain a household without posing a danger to themselves or others.

Are you able to provide data that backs up your assumptions x-jla? I ask because if you could wouldn't that be a great way to show that Jovan's views are not correct? 

This is a complex and nuanced topic. I assume neither of you would waste your time by posting views on this topic that you hadn't spent at least some time researching.

Jovan bears the burden of proof Chad. The experiment that he is proposing/endorsing is the counterintuitive thing.

Progressive: proposes obvious bad idea, gets told why it’s obviously a bad idea, demands proof from his approved reading list for why his bad idea won’t work.

I'm asking for proof from both of you. You've both made claims.  You've stated that your opinions are easily proven. I'd think that you'd provide that proof then and end the debate.

The proof is that the rate of mental illness and substance abuse is very very high. Putting people with mental health issues and substance abuse issues in unsupervised housing is not compassionate, it’s dangerous for them and others, and will not solve the root of the problem. What I am suggesting is a more involved process of empowering the homeless with guidance and professional help to learn to build and care for their self and community. The other thing thing that I’m suggesting is probably not very popular, but to design the public realm to accommodate homeless whom are not yet ready or willing to participate in such a transition. This includes simple things like heated park benches, outdoor wash rooms, security, places to pitch tents, etc. they are part of the public, and they should be allowed to occupy the public realm, but in a way that is planned and controlled and safe for everyone. I don’t like the idea of sanitizing the public realm. Homelessness is a reality of urbanization, and I think we ought to all see and accept reality, not sterilize and coddle a fantasy of urban life.

I personally don’t think that society has the right to complain about the homeless. Sorry,

but that’s your society, and you are a

member of it. Your property ends at the property line. The public realm is for the public. All of them.

You have assumed what you are attempting to prove. This is sophistry. This is not proof. A conclusion is arrived at not what you start with. Your sweeping generalizations are unfounded.

If the moderators would delete your right wing tirades this might resemble a coherent thread.

Can you specifically cite what I wrote that is “right wing”? Not that that’s bad, but I just doubt the right wing is advocating for allowing the homeless to occupy public space in a planned and accommodating way. I think it’s more likely that you are unable to make coherent arguments, so you use “right wing” as a trope of some kind.

.

“If the moderators would delete your right wing tirades this might resemble a coherent thread.“. Ha. Take a Look at this little Nazi. I showed that you were doing funny math and you want to delete me. That’s exactly what’s meant by woke math. Give me ze rezult I vant or I zelete

x-jla - You didn't show that anyone was doing 'funny math'. You also haven't provided any of the proof to your 'easily proven' claims.

If you're going to troll at least be decent at it.  

Okay, I'll grant you that there is a sanitary issue with the way tent encampments have grown. Perhaps that can be solved by policy change that allows tent encampments to legally exist, with avenues for helping to provide cleaner environments for those living in them (such as access to dumpsters and sanitary facilities, which often already get installed in public parks anyway). 

The hoops we jump through in permanent domiciles are not the same as what is being required of homeless people to live in most homeless shelters (including these tiny house villages). My house doesn't have a curfew. The apartment I used to live in didn't search my bags when I came in at the end of the day. The HOA I lived in a year ago didn't require that I met with any form of a guidance counselor as part of my living conditions (such as some Salvation Army locations do). 

I won't argue with you, temporary housing efforts do help the unhoused population who is seeking to move into a permanent home. I only think that these programs, at best, don't encompass the continually growing phenomenon of unhoused people who apparently just want to live outside (i.e. in tents), and at worst, these programs collectively draw funding and attention away from quality, attainable permanent housing, which means that temporary houses suddenly don't have an end goal to work toward.

It isn't just sanitary. Safety for personal protection and for reducing criminal activities. Relearning patterns of living with others is an issue too.

The hoops are different because of the position on the spectrum of health/safety is different. It is unreasonable to not treat the conditions differently.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-07/homeless-population-mental-illness-disability

Regardless of the accuracy of that breakdown, chronic homelessness is what we need to address first and foremost, as those are the folks in the most dire circumstances.

76% of 25% is 19%. Your data. Is it possible to walk and chew gum at the same time? 3 different types of homelessness with 3 different causes would necessitate 3 different solutions. A living wage and universal health care would go a long way to alleviate the vast majority of it.

You are making up numbers. Why are you taking 76% of 25%? The study is saying that 76% of people “living on the streets” are affected by those things.

We are most concerned with people living on the streets. I’m pretty sure these tiny homes aren’t for people sleeping on their friends couch.

In LA county. You are extrapolating 1 county to the whole country. HUD refers to the country as a whole. Even if every single chronically homeless person has either substance or mental problems 75% don't.

That is the most insulting thing I have ever read. I am flagging it.

One other thing. Fuck You.

“75% don't.“. According to what data? I don’t see that figure anywhere unless you are making the baseless leap that no mental illnesses and drug addiction exists among the situational and episodic homeless. That’s obviously not true, since baseline drug addiction and me mental illness among the general population is not zero.

Rick, you would probably be homeless if you didn’t have a support system.

And no, we don’t need a police state solution. That’s the opposite of what I’m saying.

HUD. Chronic Homelessness
"Chronically" homeless individuals have often spent a great deal of their life on the streets and have many issues that impede their ability to reconnect to their communities, including substance abuse and/or serious mental health problems.

I have cited the sources and data for my opinions and conclusions. Your turn.

Ok. That doesn’t imply that the rate of substance abuse and mental illness is zero among the rest. It is likely higher among the chronically homeless, but given that 1:4 Americans have some form of mental illness, and a great deal of the general population have substance issues, you math is false

Rick what you wrote is disturbing and I agree that it’s one of the most offensive things I’ve read on Archinect. We’re all only a few unfortunate events away from being homeless.

If so, not enough to be regarded and categorized as such as you contend. Again, your turn.

If so many of us in the US suffer from mental illness or substance abuse (which, depending on how bad-faith you want to be, might include things like ADD or cigarettes), it would seem to me that the solution to this great underlying issue of homelessness would be easier, more reliable access to healthcare services that treat those issues in accessible ways. 

Many otherwise crippling mental health issues (for instance, those with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) become almost non-issues when given proper, easy, and dignified access to medication and treatment. 

Of course, dignified means not locking someone in a mental hospital when their problems could more easily be solved by granting them access to life-improving medicines.

If your argument about the "problems" of homelessness tie back to mental health, I've solved your problem. What's next on the chopping block, X?

You don’t know what you are talking about. Schizophrenia is not a non issue when treated. It’s very hard to treat particularly in men, because they are less responsive to the drugs for some reason. And, medical services are available to the poor. In fact, they get the best medical coverage of anyone. The ones with the worst healthcare coverage are the middle class by and far.

But, yeah better healthcare would do something to help. Not problem solved though.

“I have cited the sources and data for my opinions and conclusions. Your turn.“. Lol, you want me to cite sources to show why you can’t do math or understand basic concepts of how statistics work? I have beer to drink brah. You did woke math and got caught. Walk through skid row…if you make it through…report back and I’ll declare you winner.

A predictable and hollow response from an ungracious loser of an argument.

Show your work on that math then.

Richard Balkins: I gotta say I'm gobsmacked that you're continuing your (dare I say...quasi-fascist?) rhetoric against the unhoused and mentally ill, in a thread meant to spark discussion on how to provide a path forward for those who unhoused people. I'm absolutely flagging all of your comments in this thread, and I really hope that a moderator is able to get rid of these, as they can be genuinely triggering for those who have been disenfranchised in society on the basis of economic and mental health.

JM You started this thread with the best of intentions and 2 trolls decided to shit post all over it. They are both just as bad. Troll 1 pretends to care and Troll 2 doesn't even try to hide it. Brutality seems to be their method and point.

^M’erica.

What makes what you posted not trolling?

Anyone who breaks from the orthodoxy is a troll? And what exactly did I say that makes me a troll?

Why do you assume I was referring to you? I didn't mention any names.

If everyone around you calls you a troll, maybe they aren't the ones who have the problem...

The funny thing is that x-jla has said that he doesn't take this site or anything he posts seriously. AKA trolling.  He'll then (in the same thread) get upset when people call him a troll.  

Very weird and rather sad.  

reductio ad infinitum.

Chad, sometimes I engage in constructive “trolling” if that’s what you call “playing devils advocate”. Sometimes I don’t. I’m not trolling in this thread. I believe everything I said,

x-jla - you've said before that you don't take anything you say here seriously. Now you're saying that you're just playing devils' advocate. You're confirming what I said about you four comments up. 

The thing about being a troll - you'll always be a troll and you'll always have a difficult time getting people to take you seriously.  That's your own fault though.  

Free banking through the USPS is also a potential big assistance to people experiencing homelessness, as well as a great majority of other issues that contribute to instability. What would it take for the government to facilitate Free PO boxes and bank accounts? That's a real quantifiable act.

Free banking through the USPS is only and totally a great idea that would benefit society. Which is why congress will never allow it, they’ll lose all that sweet sweet banking lobby money.

You can’t restore dignity,

by giving someone stuff and things. That can be part of the solution, but empowering people to be able to function again in society, and to care for themselves, requires work than is not happening. I blame this on the leftist asversiom

*aversion to the idea of “bootstrapping” or “self empowerment” or “personal responsibility”. The narrative is that it’s all Jeff Bezos fault or something. You have to teach people to become functional before you put them into a society that requires functionality, or they will malfunction and take the society down with them. That’s obvious.

dude the liberal rage and blame game can't be making your longer or better.

What would it take for an architect to say create a free little mailbox system? For every 5, 50k tiny houses, we could easily create 50 secure and assignable mailboxes as well. We could create a program where any business could also host a free mailbox, bolted on their sidewalk, dispersed throughout the city. No utilities, minimal ongoing maintenance, enhanced opportunities for people to access services receive money, and healthcare options, build credit and stability, food and clothing delivery there are just a ton of things that could be done. all with a mailbox.

“You have to teach people to become functional before you put them into a society that requires functionality.“

xjla, this education/training you reference is necessary but it requires giving people the basic tools that they do not have from other social/societal constructs (ie, typically families), such as food-, health- & safety-stability. Claiming not “bootstrapping” is a personal failure just blames the indigent for not having the privileges of those more fortunate. This notion of individual exceptionalism is a myth that ignores that society, whether family or community, supports individuals in many ways both apparent (like clean water) and invisibly (like public safety or rule of law).

X, it’s opinions like yours that keep the USA from advancing. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so fucking tragic.

Advancing into a what?

Canada. lol no thanks. Justin Treudeu is the most useless human in the world.

If him and Kamala Harris had a baby…imagine that.

Non, what is wrong about what I wrote specifically? You think not having discipline produces the same results as having discipline? Just curious why you enjoy a life brought to you by discipline, but you feel the homeless are not entitled to that same sense of self empowerment. Wait, I know the answer. It’s because you have an elitist attitude and they are like minorities…things be saved…and then of course that gives purpose to the “saviors”.

Not really worth the pixels to type a response X. Your POV is "I have it, why can't everyone else do the same, it's simple, just work!" It's useless trying to level with inane people like you.

That’s not what I said. Where did I say that?

What I said is that they need to be transitioned into being productive members of their community. That may not mean making money. It may be some other form of usefulness. People gain meaning in life from being useful to others. That’s what humans are. We are social creatures. Why would you want to deny the homeless of that most basic thing. Responsibility to others and the community is the ultimate way to uplift people who have lost their place in society. Yes, a homeless person who becomes a little more responsible, motivated, etc will see some improvement in life. This is an undeniable fact. But what good for the goose is good for the gander.

I mean, imagine the movie where all the inner city kids have fathers who are responsible and they grow up to have good chances at like - not staring Michelle Pfifer. That movie isn’t appealing to the left types. Just saying.

The elites want a monopoly on all the things that make them have meaning, then they act as if those things are a burden for others. Give us your burden and responsibility! We like it. Our “guilt” will be the excuse to justify the thing that we really desire. You just loath while we save. It’s the most selfish and racist and narcissistic pattern. Responsibility is the ultimate currency, and certain groups want it all. It’s From a good place, but some people want to hog it all. Forget about economic inequality. The real inequality is one of tribal status gained through the adoption of responsibility for the tribe.

Woooooshe. You’re hopeless. Hopefully it’s not contagious.

Just a reminder that I have x-jla on "ignore" so I have no idea what any of his responses above are.

Good thing you reminded them. I hear even looking at my posts can get you kicked out of the country club

202 comments 75 from whomever they are. They have moved into racist dog whistles now sprinkled on top of pretzel logic rants about so called liberal elitism. The intention seems to be to get the thread deleted. Hopefully the moderators will keep the suggestions about the free banking and mailboxes.

What’s a racist dog whistler. Lol. You are pulling out the 2019 trick bag huh. That means you have nothing.

This is the second time you have responded to a comment where no name was mentioned.

I responded below your comment where you referred to a “racist dog whistle”. It’s pretty obvious who I am responding to. Again, what was a racist dog whistle? Because, from my point of view, the racists and fascists are the ones who would be glad to subjugate other people to dependence upon them, while deriving meaning and self worth from the adoption of their responsibility burden. The main oppression that I see comes from that, not from where the Marxists suggest. If you want to run an experiment, simply abandon all of your responsibilities and see how you feel. The homeless need to have their dignity restored. That is accomplished in a social hierarchy by their ability to begin to adopt responsibility for themselves and their communities. My suggestion was to create a system for this to manifest, and for the manifestation of an architectural/urban development model that lends itself to such a goal. Building community is more than brick and mortar. A human is more than a vessel for materialism.

X, you just don't want to see more money spent on the less fortunate. According to you, there is enough in place already (probably too much), so there is no excuse other than laziness for anyone to get ahead. Enough with the fake altruism, we see through that shit.

you know when xlax and balkins unite, their position is unequivocally, completely, hopelessly flawed.

Exactly NS, at first the argument was that the homeless where homeless due to their own failures and should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. When housing first proved that they would do exactly that then the argument became they are all drug addicts and mentally ill and can't be trusted. Now the argument comes full circle that they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is more then not giving a shit. The method and point is cruelty and brutality to those less fortunate.

*were homeless*

Non, I don’t want to see money pissed away and embezzled by bureaucrats. You are making a straw man argument. Square, where do our positions unite? Your positions are way closer to balkins actually. My position is to make the public realm habitable for the homeless as a level 1 solution. Mailboxes are good. I would also include heated park areas, washrooms, etc. your positions and balkins positions both want to “clean up” and “eradicate” homelessness. I’m saying to accept a certain level of homelessness but provide a basic infrastructure and accommodate those who live on the streets so that they can do so in relative dignity and safety. What I am saying is not a right wing position at all. It’s actually a left anarchist position. The antifa types would probably have a similar position. I am also not saying that is the only thing that should be done. That’s just a way to raise the quality of the bottom. The other stuff mentioned above would be a transition into a more improved life.

And, to be clear, raising the quality of the bottom should ALWAYS be a first priority in these types of things, because that’s the most critical part. Like, before you worry about diet and exercise, you have to stabailize the heart rhythm and remove the immediate danger (medical analogy)

... as long as it does not cost you anything... either time, money, or any other inconvenience. Again, you're hopeless.

There is a selfish tendency to put the cart before the horse, because there is no glory in these small things I mentioned

As a landscape guy, I’m used to no glory and less control over outcomes maybe. Setting up conditions and letting spontaneous order take its course…

There has to be a bottom up solution from there. The way that’s done is the same way you would set up any company- through competence hierarchies, accountability, and division of responsibilities within the community. You find an elder homeless person who is capable and has leadership qualities, and you organize small groups. You provide them land, materials, professional help and guidance, and you allow them to build and develop community.

It’s actually more like a ‘manhattanism” as described by Koolhaus in Delirious NY. You have a sort of “grid” or basic organizational logic and infrastructure…and you allow for spontaneous order within that scaffolding. It’s a less controlled type of arrangement and solution that is needed. Like manhattanism, the results are dynamic and much more complex than any top down bs you can create.

you ever think about just not commenting?

or maybe commenting just once. there are four in a row up there. a lot can be said in a few words.

I should practice being more concise, but it’s hard when I am trying to respond to the entire brigade.

If the "entire brigade" has told you the same thing over and over again, maybe it would be wise to re-evaluate your position on enforced hierarchy over un-housed people and how that relates to their human dignity...

You dishonest little shit. Where did I say “enforced hierarchy”. You are intellectually dishonest, frail, and the country will fail because of your type.

What should be moderated are these types of intentional lies, because they confuse and obscure the conversation. They provide no substance to the debate.

"The homeless need to have their dignity restored. That is accomplished in a social hierarchy by their ability to begin to adopt responsibility for themselves and their communities."

- x-jla (emphasis mine)

To be patently clear, allowing unhoused people who have a tent for a home, within their auto-constructed communities, without fear of legal punishment by the city, *would be* an anarchist position (and one that I believe in), but not as a full-stop solution to the poverty and victimization that unhoused people currently face. Providing them with a path toward equitable housing (and not simply equal opportunity) would be the fair solution, which x-jla decries in favor of "personal responsibility", because he ultimately believes in enforced hierarchies which keep unhoused people at the bottom of the ladder, without an accessible path out of the poverty they face because of their unhoused condition.

The understanding that x-jla (willfully?) refuses to acknowledge is the difference between "ending poverty" (good goal, equitable, and requires varying amounts of top-down intervention by those who have the means to positively affect impoverished communities and demographics) and "ending homelessness" (very unclear goal, has ties to fascist ideology, very easy to cast unhoused people as a block to be "dealt with").

“but not as a full-stop solution to the poverty and victimization that unhoused people currently face. Providing them with a path toward equitable housing (and not simply equal opportunity) would be the fair solution, which x-jla decries in favor of "personal responsibility", because he ultimately believes in enforced hierarchies which keep unhoused people at the bottom of the ladder, without an accessible path out of the poverty they face because of their unhoused condition.”. None of this is what I said. You are making this up. Are you denying that personal responsibility and discipline is empowering for individuals?

"Fend for yourself you lazy fucker and stop asking for our tax dollars. Look at me, I'm doing fine, you have no excuse why you can't either. Take responsibility and stop being a burden on us privileged folks who have to bear your unsightly ways." - XJLA.

Not pictured: Xjla

Sorry, I'm just using my old fifth grade reading comprehension skills to correctly interpret what it is you wrote. If it's not what you meant (which I very much think it is), then feel free to clarify, but I doubt that clarification will help you much, considering the beliefs you hold. Discipline and personal responsibilities have long-been right wing dog whistles for "abject moral failure of poor people", so I won't be engaging in a bad-faith discussion with you about that.

"Fend for yourself you lazy fucker and stop asking for our tax dollars. Look at me, I'm doing fine, you have no excuse why you can't either. Take responsibility and stop being a burden on us privileged folks who have to bear your unsightly ways." - Non sequiter

The following is a public service announcement.

Do you find it impossible for your ideas to find a home?

At Friends of Rick we understand.

Contact Friends of Rick and we will partner you with a sponsor.

Friends of Rick is an outreach program of Trolls Anonymous and is based on a bottom up philosophy whose goal is to restore purpose and diginity to the intellectually dispossessed and morally disenfranchised.

We now return you to your regular programming.

Jovan, fuck the dog whistles bs. I’m not whistling to any dogs. I’m telling you that a person who lacks discipline and personal responsibility will not do as well in life or be as happy as a person who does not lack discipline and personal responsibility. That’s a fact. A 100% undeniable fact. If you don’t believe this to be true in progressive fairy tale land please at least do us a favor and don’t reproduce

If you don’t believe me, then stop being disciplined and personally responsible in your own life before prescribing such a toxic pill to others.

Still fucking that straw sex doll, eh?

We don't believe you because what you say only makes sense inside your own deranged mind. I'm sure there is a pill for that.

But you god damn elitists do everything in your power for “self improvement”. Therapy, the gym, yoga, diets, education, etc. all brought to you by discipline and

*then you ironically prescribe a life of dependence and loathing upon others. If that’s not elitist…I dunno

https://www.urbangeographyjournal.org/journal/book-reviews/mean-streets-homelessness-public-space-and-the-limits-of-capital-by-don-mitchell

@NS Lmao, some of x-jla's comments could be a Dead Kennedys song, I swear. "Discipline and personal responsibility" according to who? You? The state? Who gets to define discipline when we're talking about social equity and the human right to live?

Sounds to me like the root of your privilege is…I dunno…the discipline and self worth that was instilled in you as a kid by your family and your community. What a tragedy it would be to help less fortunate folks find those same tools and use them to improve their situations and psychological state.

We could print the steps toward improved discipline and self worth mirrored on the soles of boots, that way they could read their own necks and improve their situations and psychological state.

“Discipline and personal responsibility" according to who? You? The state? Who gets to define discipline when we're talking about social equity and the human right to live”. Absolutely no where would I suggest that this is the job of the state to enforce. I litterally said the opposite of this. Lol

Pair up, y'all. Everyone pick someone to help. Can't rely on the charity, kindness, or help of others if it's distributed by THE STATE. YUCK.

SP, again, I Litterally states a requisite precondition. That was an acceptance and an accommodation for the homeless community in the public realm. You are unable to comprehend that one can hold both left and right positions. I never purchased the political bundle package. I don’t really concern myself with team sports either.

it seems especially cruel to tell people that all they need is a little personal responsibility and discipline while insisting that they remain in a situation where acting in such ways requires orders of magnitude more effort than it would otherwise.

put more simply: teaching a person to fish may help them in the long run, but insisting that they starve while you teach them is not compassionate.

Not to mention that many tent encampments are self governed, full of people who have loads of discipline and responsibility to their local communities. But I guess bums don't really fit xjla's definition of responsibility and discipline. Wonder what he thinks of people who live in mobile homes...

“it seems especially cruel to tell people that all they need”. That would be cruel. Good thing that’s not what I said.

Jovan, The outcome of what I was suggesting would probably look more like a favela than a tent encampment. A organized community of once homeless folks who build a more permanent settlement.

For that to happen they need social responsibility, and competence hierarchies within their community. That takes discipline and some leadership and self governance. Now, if we can provide basic infrastructure, like running water, sewage, land, and sanitation, addresses, and some guidance, counseling, motivation and all

"The only correct version of moral aptitude is the one I personally agree with, and I think we should keep poor people down until they see things my way" -- x-jla

*the basics that we have, that would be empowering to them. They can work within their communities to help maintain their communities. That will give them purpose and structure. All good stuff.

Yeah, the homeless should band together in one place and start building places that they can call home so the State Transit Authority can bulldoze their communities easier. Or maybe they can find some person willing to let them use a vacant property so the local municipalities can use zoning and health codes to bulldoze their communities easier. You're such a well informed and stable genius.

I understand that, which is why the land would need to be allocated for their use legally. Basic infrastructure would need to be put into place. Draconian laws and zoning would need to be changed to accommodate. I’ve used this word “accommodate” a lot in this thread. That’s because I believe we need to “accommodate” this special and growing demographic. Accommodations are both material and legal.

We can use eminent domain to de-house people for freeways (Thanks, Bob!) but not to re-house them. Gotta love the fucked up priorities in this country.

Gotta love Donna sink liking a comment that she has no idea what it’s in response to. What a gem.

Who said to use eminent domain to build freeways?

Why are you so dishonest?

How many white saviors does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

It might break the internet for two intellectual pedestrians to self destruct on parallel threads on homelessness.

Robert Moses did, lax.

There is no shortage of space that can be allocated to the homeless. It’s the labyrinth of red tape that is the biggest problem. Brought to you by your favorite thing - big government. Then you complain about the speed of solutions. Too bad it can’t be like “the speed of science” huh.

You honestly believe that removing red tape for development would cause it to be allocated to the homeless without government involvement? Do you even live on this planet?

I was suggesting that public land be allocated

Public land... owned in common by the people... held by the... government??

Hence, public space/ shared space, homeless are part of the public, let them occupy land in a more planned and controlled and accommodated way. This is not as controversial as you all are making it

The homeless having a greater part in building and maintaining their community and having a more organized community is also not controversial unless you have an aversion to the skills required to do that…which you utilize to uphold your own life…if that’s the case, it’s an elitist attitude. All i was saying

X-jla derangement syndrome

“Public land... owned in common by the people... held by the... government??” Yes. The homeless are “the people” so they ought to be allowed to use that land too. All I was/am saying is that currently public space is designed to accommodate certain activities like shopping, playing, etc, and we ought to add informal/transient living to that, because the homeless are part of the demographic to consider when designing public space. That requires a certain degree of acceptance that homeless will occur. I suggested heating, washrooms, etc. For a more permanent housing, there can be areas of land designated for homeless communities as I described above. My main disagreement I think is that I feel a certain level of bottom up organic growth is required for these communities to be successful, because a community is more than brick and mortar

It requires a population with a stake, a hand in its creation, and communal responsibilities to maintain it.

you got the last word in on that thread.......

Great idea.