Toronto carpenter builds 'tiny shelters' for the homeless. The city isn't happy

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2021/04/23/toronto-carpenter-tiny-shelters-homeless-covid19-240482

by webmaven • 5 years ago

119 167 5 years ago

mkoubaa2• 5 years ago

Homeless shelters are awful places. Not only because of the conditions there but also sometimes the conditions for being there. I know someone who was kicked out of one once for not participating in a Christian prayer (he is Muslim).

I can't imagine a better and cheaper solution than the man in the article came up with. It's clear the city leaders prefer to stick their head in the sand than to entertain real solutions

testesttest• 5 years ago

Shanty towns aren't really a "solution".

I used to have a park near me. It was nice. Now it is a small tent city. I wish my city cared.

brailsafe2• 5 years ago

Well, you're part of the city. What would you vote for to improve the situation for homeless and non-homeless people?

proc02• 5 years ago

These would be alternative to tents, slightly more permanent, and therefore have the advantage of allowing some control over their placement. I can see this as a beginning to an alternative way to solve it that could make everyone happy, by spreading out semi-permanent shelter strategically, and preventing all kinds of things by isolating people this way while at the same time providing shelter and ideally hygiene also.

shimonabi• 5 years ago

Dog houses are not a solution.

gumby• 5 years ago

It doesn’t sound like he intends them to be. Just a temporary patch on the problem.

EvilEy32• 5 years ago

There's nothing more permanent than "temporary" solution.

cassepipe• 5 years ago

Tents aren't either. We should tell homeless people because they don't seem to be aware.

When people in charge do not care, some people have the courage to look for achievable betterment. If I was homeless, I would really prefer the dog house and I would be glad somebody really cared. Plus they look great.

Shanty towns aren't a solution but they are the best achievable solution to the people that build them.

Or is it really a lack of care or do homeless people have the social role of reminding working people what could happen to them if they decided to did not want to do that shitty job anymore ?

I am aware that homelessness is problem that is more complex than it seems. Unsurprisingly, those who fall into homelessness, generally start in life some kind of handicap whether it is a psychological, social or physical handicap. Drug abuse is a real problem but experiments show that a more stable and less stressful life leads to reduced and better drug use patterns rather than buy all the drug you can because there might be no tomorrow. I won't go into discussing whether drug abuse is a cause or consequence of homelessness as it can be both or none. Having said all that, I doubt there's any political will to "solve" as those people don't vote, just get the cops to make them go away from the places where people who vote live. But It's possible I am being cynical.

b112• 5 years ago

Plus, -30C in tents isn't a good thing.

The article claims there is insulation in the units he built, vapor barriers. This is a massive difference over a tent. A live-or-die difference, especially if one is sick with a cold or flu.

3dee2• 5 years ago

They can be.

For example you can lock them. This gives other opportunities than a tent.

They give better protection against the elements. So the body will have less stress giving the mind more focus on planning ahead.

Homeless people are in survival mode all the time. A tiny firm shelter can change that mode. This is also the reason why 'housing first' projects work. They take away the survival mode and make thinking about the future an option again.

nomdep• 5 years ago

I couldn't find a single photo of a tiny shelter in the whole article.

evan_• 5 years ago

There are a few in the linked gofundme. https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign...

RandomWorker• 5 years ago

https://ca.gofundme.com/f/toronto-tiny-shelters?utm_campaign...

Some can be seen on the gofundme.

More info plus video on CBC

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mobile-shelters-homel...

One more;

https://broadview.org/tiny-homes-khaleel-seivwright/

Fezzik• 5 years ago

The NYT article seems (to me) to have both the best photos and the best write-up: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/world/canada/khaleel-seiv...

waheoo• 5 years ago

Oh yea, that's a problem. They're shanty shacks.

Welcome to the Toronto slums.

polartx• 5 years ago

I was looking for the same thing. I came to the conclusion that the reason the article didn’t share any is because a 6x8’ (ironically, slightly smaller than the dimensions of a jail cell) plywood shack, constructed by a 28 year old, that is given away, probably looks worse than the shanties of the poorest Brazilian favelas.

As a side note, it’s often times easier to gauge the bias of a news source by what they deliberately won’t show you, than the entirety of the content they craft to try and persuade you.

bscphil• 5 years ago

probably looks worse than the shanties of the poorest Brazilian favelas.

They're intended to be temporary shelters, not homes. In any case, isn't the correct comparison to the tent or sleeping bag someone would otherwise be living in?

djmips2• 5 years ago

Yeah, come to your conclusions instead of spending the extra few minutes.

eitland• 5 years ago

ironically, slightly smaller than the dimensions of a jail cell

The major difference being that you aren't locked in. (Side note: I belive you will need a second escape for this to be legal in Norway and a number of other places.)

Furthermore, for the same type of geometry more room means more surface which means either more insulation and higher build cost or not being usable in winter without extra heating.

Also, for reference, my "corona office" that I use now is 1.6mx1.8m and contains a 1.4m desk and a 0.4m width filing cabinet on one wall, a chair in the middle and a bookshelf and an area were I stack plastic boxes behind me. It is cramped and I often opt for the kitchen when I can but when schools are closed it feels like it is the difference between working productively and going nuts.

djmips2• 5 years ago

They linked a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdbmLKaGleg

olivermarks2• 5 years ago

'people without housing opted to sleep outside in tents rather than accept the heightened risk at the shelters'....

This issue is more complex than it appears. The catchall phrase 'homeless' doesn't begin to describe the three horsemen of the unsheltered apocalypse: Substance abuse, Serious mental illness and indigents.

While the shelters are often very rough drug dens, ironically many substance abuse casualties refuse care and walk out of other services facilities because they won't or can't abide by the sobriety rules.

I'm very enthusiastic about firms like palletshelter.com because local authorities can quickly set up their heat & ac equipped tiny homes on local land and infrastructure to serve the three distinct group's very different needs. What doesn't work is allowing addicts to camp out in downtown areas for obvious hygiene and practical reasons. This chap who is using his carpentry skills to 'help the homeless' is arguably a well meaning co dependent.

California is an absolute disaster area right now, with half the USA homeless and more coming, 13 billion spent in the last three years on a problem that is getting worse, and the misguided 'housing first' dogma dominating political decision making. The sooner we start behaving responsibly towards the unsheltered and take their disparate issues and needs seriously in the western world the sooner we can begin to tackle this huge issue. Building favelas and skid rows in major cities is a recipe for disaster and so are attempts to provide free housing for everyone who doesn't have one for obvious economic and behavioral/medical reasons.

https://vimeo.com/532718306 Venice Beach in LA 2021

cigaser2• 5 years ago

How about we stop moralising and just provide shelter? Half of population is hooked on opioids and psych drugs. But somehow it is unacceptable for homeless to get high.

It is responsibility of city hall to provide basic infrastructure. That includes showers and toilets!

EvilEy32• 5 years ago

Half of population is hooked on opioids and psych drugs. But somehow it is unacceptable for homeless to get high.

Indeed. It must be unacceptable for everyone. Drugs, like religion, is a cancer of society.

wahern• 5 years ago

How about we stop moralising and just provide shelter?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/23/us/fentanyl-overdoses-san...

happytoexplain• 5 years ago

Building favelas and skid rows in major cities is a recipe for disaster and so are attempts to provide free housing for everyone who doesn't have one for obvious economic and behavioral/medical reasons.

Where is "obvious ... reasons" being applied in this sentence - to the people's lack of housing, or to the problems with building housing for all?

reom_tobit• 5 years ago

I would imagine they follow a similar school of thought to the “Moral Hazard” crowd, by the sounds of things.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moralhazard.asp

olivermarks2• 5 years ago

Favelas and skid rows: Public hygiene, safety, degradation of public facilities, stress on resources.

'Housing first': the economics of providing free housing has been historically demonstrated by then mayor of San Francisco Newsom, who pledged to 'end homelessness' 17 years ago. https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/A-decade-of-homeles... The result was an expensive disaster - the more housing was provided for the 'homeless', the more people came to get free housing in a temperate climate with a casual attitude to drug use.

Last year Newsom as California governor used billions of covid relief money to buy motels under 'project homekey'and is planning more of this spending in 2021 in a repeat of his San Francisco Mayor disster. Housing 31 people in hotel room 'homes' locally to where I am sitting now cost around 18m, just over a half million per person plus annual service costs - 3 hot meals a day delivered from a local restaurant (Mexicans who immigrated illegally and now run a thriving business).

In the western world urban centers the homeless migrate to, housing and utility costs are very high compared to the rest of the world. LA beachfront housing is famously high, yet local politicians are packing Venice Beach and other areas with street dwellers.

'Housing first' is an academic philosophy originating in 1980's UK that suggests that public spending to give permanent free housing to the homeless is a viable solution as that de stresses the person being housed and 'allows them to get back on their feet' in society, solving their SMI and substance abuse issues. This has been proven over and over again to be the wrong answer while being blindingly expensive and effectively advertising free houses through the grapevine.

Well meaning compassionate people buy in to politicians saying these things (and arguably become co dependents to those for whom obtaining drugs for their habit is paramount). All too often politicians create a Potemkin village housing a few homeless in show homes to parade in their media while ignoring the rest, all while quietly cutting housing costs elsewhere. An example is these San Francisco housing projects residents discussing how they may be evicted after the pandemic.

https://youtu.be/A_2dDbFD4FE

As I said previously the answer is mobile home/tiny home facilities on public land/infrastructure run at a federal level to prevent mass migrations to where the grass is greenest, and large scale spending on substance abuse and SMI care in separate locations.

nanoshelter• 5 years ago

Occupod.org Nanoshelter.com

I built over twenty of these mobile nanoshelters so far. $155 each. The excuse of not a long term solution equates to corrupt morals and could be a sign of anti human bias or some mental issue.

randomsearch4• 5 years ago

Aside: having a little first and close secondhand experience of homelessness and hostel provision, it seems to me that many people think drugs and mental health issues are the key causes. This is untrue. I'd say there is a "core problem" of those issues, which would be very difficult to solve, but it is a minority. I also wonder how much those problems are secondary symptoms rather than causes. Live on the street long enough and you'll be wanting an escape, for example.

In London my experience was that a large number (majority?) sleeping on the streets were there because of benefit sanctions, i.e. they simply could not afford to live in a house as the government had removed their social welfare. Some people were waiting to be housed etc.

It only takes a moment's thought to notice (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, (b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.

3dee2• 5 years ago

Maybe it depends on the country. But after working with homeless people in the Netherlands I completely agree with you.

I helped homeless people who had a job but could not afford a house anymore for different reasons. Most were helped with housing after some time. But if that time is long the temptation to take more alcohol than you should is right around the corner.

MomoXenosaga• 5 years ago

The Netherlands has a pretty effective social housing program. Not flawless but millions of people have a roof over their head thanks to government assistance.

s17n• 5 years ago

People aren't worried about homelessness per se, they are worried about the impact on their own quality of life, which is primarily from people with drug and mental health issues.

watt2• 5 years ago

I am not sure why it's relevant to point this out. Actually I think it's rather heartless. Don't you have some ideals to strive for?

Coming from Berlin (which has sizable population of homeless) it was shocking to see many people sleeping on the street in Belfast. There's a lot of homeless in Berlin but I guess they can go to shelter at night. Not so in Belfast.

Broken_Hippo4• 5 years ago

Slews of people with mental health and drug addiction issues aren't homeless, and few worry about them if they are keeping to themselves. And slews of homeless folks don't do drugs nor start out with mental health issues. After all, job loss is a thing and drugs are expensive.

People could just house others, which is cheaper and more humane than our current actions, and they could go back to pretending mental health issues and drug addiction do not exist.

randomsearch4• 5 years ago

oh wow what an insight - this is why people focus on that part. It had never occurred to me before, thanks! So the quiet majority of homeless people don't get discussed because they don't bother rich people... that makes so much sense.

barrkel• 5 years ago

There are a lot more crazy people on US streets. Crazy as in stereotypical ranting at strangers.

mft_• 5 years ago

It is something that could be dealt with, if a country chose to do so. In Switzerland I don’t think I ever saw someone living in the street.

AIUI this is because every citizen has the right to housing - and because the state is compassionate/efficient/wealthy enough this is what happens.

seanmcdirmid4• 5 years ago

I lived in Lausanne and used the youth hostel when I first moved there. There was a homeless drunk guy that the police would put in the hostel every night, he smelled horrible. It wasn’t a great experience for me but at least he wasn’t sleeping on the street. Lausanne also had a lot of squatters, mostly young foreigners, but that was a completely different subculture. I never figured out why the police didn’t come down hard on them, they did on everything else.

roenxi3• 5 years ago

The article is talking about Toronto. You're talking about London. Both of these cities have the distinction of making various lists with titles like "The 11 most expensive cities to live in around the world in 2020" [0].

So while I don't disagree that that far tail of people probably do need some welfare to get a house, I do want to state that if someone is going to get welfare so that they can live in a house, it should not be a house in London. It should be a house somewhere somewhat cheaper than London.

If someone honest to goodness can't keep a roof over their heads, they deserve help but really shouldn't be trying to make it work in one of the worlds most expensive cities.

[0] https://www.insider.com/most-expensive-cities-to-live-in-202...

joshjdr2• 5 years ago

The article is talking about tiny temporary shelters, not giving away houses, or expensive flats.

Broken_Hippo4• 5 years ago

Most people have little choice in where they live. It doesn't matter if the city you live in is expensive: When you are poor, you can't move. Some people might like to move: Others would not.

Forcing folks to move can easily mean forcing folks to leave behind what family and friends they have, and seems cruel. Some of the folks will have jobs that don't pay enough to live in the city they work in, and I don't think we should punish people by making them have hours of commuting either.

"You are too poor to live here" is also "you are too poor to afford to take this basic job" as well as "you are too poor to stay around anyone you know".

mlindner3• 5 years ago

Homelessness exists in cities because it's possible to be homeless in cities. It's not possible to be homeless (without a vehicle) outside cities. Ergo, cities cultivate homelessness. If you make living as a homeless person impossible in cities, homelessness would disappear.

bregma2• 5 years ago

A lot of homeless people have jobs. Jobs are in the city. Are you suggesting all the homeless need to do is rent a parking space downtown for their Bentley and they can commute from a nice tent in a farmer's field outside of town?

For goodness sakes, a shack on a lake north of Toronto goes for millions of dollars these days [0].

A few years ago a conservative government in Alberta tried to solve their homeless problem by giving free one-way tickets to Vancouver to the homeless instead of welfare cheques. Dumping your problem on someone else converts a cost into an economic externality but is sure to get you hated.

[0] http://muskokacottagesforsale.net/real-estate-properties/

slothtrop• 5 years ago

The other distinction with Toronto is the government hasn't "removed their welfare" as the other user suggests. Most of the homeless have a source of income.

diogenescynic4• 5 years ago

Is it really surprising that drug addicts can’t afford housing in the most expensive cities in the world? In San Francisco we are constantly fed propaganda to tell us this is a housing crisis, but someone on meth or heroin can’t afford the rent regardless if it’s in SF or Des Moines. The drugs are the big issue but no one wants to address it.

randomsearch4• 5 years ago

The article is talking about Toronto. You're talking about London.

Sorry, no I wasn't, my fault for not being clearer. I gave an example of London but my experience is beyond that city, that's just where I happened to talk directly with a lot of homeless people about why they were on the streets.

My observations generalise to the rest of my experience, for sure, including in very poor towns with low rents in the UK.

VWWHFSfQ• 5 years ago

Possibly depends on the country and region. But I worked very closely with the homeless population in Seattle from 2001-2010 and the key issues prevalent in almost every case was chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, and mental illness.

I left Seattle in 2010 and went back a couple years ago to visit and it looked like the homeless population had doubled in the time since. Seattle has an enormous problem that they have no idea how to solve.

DennisP• 5 years ago

Were they addicted or mentally ill before they became homeless?

Aerroon• 5 years ago

When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.

It's not just about what they provide, but also how they provide it. If the bureaucracy to take advantage of these housing benefits is too thick, then the people that need it the most won't be able to get them.

This is one thing where individuals trying to help are likely going to do better. An individual isn't going to have a bureaucratic mess that you need to navigate to get help. The government might have such a mess though.

paganel• 5 years ago

(a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries,

This is not repeated as often as it should. I live in an Eastern European country, not a poor one but definitely not a rich one, and only recently I have learned about LA's Skid Row. Because I was curious I went on Google StreetView and what I saw there [1] literally shocked me, I didn't honestly think scenes like that were possible in a developed country. We certainly don't have them here in my country, we do have our share of people living rough [2] and the like but not on the same scale as I saw in those photos.

This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it).

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0437952,-118.2431811,3a,48.9...

[2] https://www.scena9.ro/article/segregare-romi-pata-rat-cluj

Mediterraneo10• 5 years ago

Romania has its plethora of (mainly Roma) shantytowns across the country, like Pata Rât which you link. But reasons why no one resorts to tents on a sidewalk are e.g. 1) weather in Romania is more or less the same across the country, unlike California which draws homeless from across the country for its clement weather, and 2) the Romanian authorities are more hands-off with enforcing building codes in Roma settlements, so you can erect actual buildings.

Also, perhaps emigration to Western Europe has served as a safety valve for homelessness. Some down-and-out Romanians can move to Italy or Spain and immediately improve their prospects. Down-and-out Americans, on the other hand, have nowhere to go so easily.

diogenescynic4• 5 years ago

That is what I tell Americans all the time—go to any poor country in Europe and it never looks as bad as even the richer parts of San Francisco or LA. In California we simply have given up on the homeless.

We squander hundreds of millions and billions into completely untracked and unaccountable programs where executives skim off the top. We spend money on giving drug addicts more needles (but not to diabetics!) and blankets and $5000 tent camps or other useless or less than useless solutions. It’s pathetic that in the richest state and with so much wealth, we allow this inhumane situation to continue. COVID gave local mayors an excuse to do even less. Now there are city streets covered in filth, rats, feces, lawlessness, drugs, prostitution, etc are all on the street in broad daylight.

We should be embarrassed but most people just shrug it off (or downvote for bringing it up). Whatever we are doing is clearly not working and it’s a policy failure we should look into.

Then we have morons like the DA in San Francisco, Chesa Boudin, who have effectively stopped the police from enforcing the rule of law which is attracting more of the homeless who just want to do meth and steal bikes and break them down for parts. Every freeway overpass is covered in trash and homeless creeps are all over. I’m taking my wife and kid and moving out of California soon, this is just a disgusting way to live for the astronomical cost of living.

YeGoblynQueenne• 5 years ago

> This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it).

It's not a failure of the US society. In some parts of the world, which include the US, if you're out on the streets on your ass it's your fault. In other parts of the world, if you're out on the streets on your ass it doesn't matter whose fault it is, we'll take you in. Usually "we" is the family, sometimes "we" is the state.

But it's a feature, not a bug. Some parts of the world are so individualistic that everyone is on their own, for good or bad.

throwaway1892622• 5 years ago

It's housing costs entertwined with mental problems and drug use.

In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month. In rich countries such shacks are illegal and all the regulation and land cost raises minimum rent far above that.

At least 2/3 of homeless are addicted or mentally ill. The fraction that isn't typically doesn't live on the streets for more than a few months.

In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.

foobarian• 5 years ago

In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.

I also wonder how much more likely certain countries are to quietly move mental health cases into clinics. This implies a whole lot of things about freedoms and due process.

skissane• 5 years ago

In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.

India has well over a million homeless people, including (by some accounts) over 100,000 in the capital Delhi. I personally remember seeing quite a few people who appeared homeless in Delhi, including families squatting in historical sites (the Old Fort).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_India

randomsearch4• 5 years ago

In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month.

Not in Western Europe, which shows that it is a problem with the US.

seanmcdirmid4• 5 years ago

In my city in the states, easy homelessness cases are easy to treat so they get treated, and plucked from the pool of visible homeless rather quickly as they obtain and maintain transitional housing. That leaves behind a lot of chronic cases that aren’t easy to just throw some resources at, the ones where drugs and mental illness are involved.

Also, the more successful anyone city treats its problem, the worse it becomes if the larger context it exists in doesn’t treat it as well. For example, I read a story about an ex-con who is released from a prison in Texas, is given a bus ticket to go anywhere, and picks Seattle (not having ever been there) because they hear that is the place to be right now (they might have picked LA before). So the problem is influenced by regional and National governments as well, one city or even metro can’t work alone its way out of the problem.

I imagine it’s similar in the UK, just maybe on a smaller case (our problem over here has exploded in the last decade).

bradleyjg2• 5 years ago

(b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness.

In NYC that difference in policy was not anything to do with social welfare payments. It was a reduction in arrests for quality of life crimes. Fewer people in jail, more on the streets. At least in the medium term—-in the decades’ long view the larger change was closing the big mental institutions in favor of “community treatment”.

It’s worth noting that NYC is legally obligated to provide a bed for everyone. The people on the street don’t want to use the shelter system for a mixture of reasons.

marksbrown• 5 years ago

Precisely. Due to the pandemic we now know two things in the UK. First that there are 9 times as many homeless as stats claim and second that all people can be housed. This is due to the fact that this was accomplished during the first lockdown. There just has to be political will.

BackBlast• 5 years ago

When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.

Such social services are, themselves, often chains that bind people down. The requirements to receive them often lead people away from incremental work that would allow them to dip their toes in and potentially get back on their feet. Minimum wage laws increase the barriers further for the down and out.

Additionally, there is a kind of depression that hits when you are not providing for yourself. Especially for men.

It's my opinion it's the barriers we build that's the root cause of the cost minimums. The tight and restrictive zoning laws are more to blame for homelessness. Restrictive zoning cause the minimum income level to get housing to be quite elevated, and if you find yourself below that level - you are homeless. Minimum wage barriers to work stem from pricing caused by the zoning. If a society is able to lower that minimum income level significantly, then there will be a lot fewer on the streets.

I always fancied allowing for parking lots that let people live out of their cars, or a tent if you can't manage a car. The lots could charge for rent and provide basic amenities such as bathrooms, wifi, communal kitchen, and maybe power for a heated blanket. Then pretty much any down and out commercial property could be turned into such a lot without much work.

Here the minimum rent is about $1000/mo, if you're willing to be a roommate you can get that down to about $500/mo. A car-turned-home-lot at local real estate prices could support rents as low as $75-100/mo per slot and be quite profitable for the lot owner. If done as a non-profit it could be $40-50/mo at current interest rates. An order of magnitude lower.

Such options give people the dignity and self respect of caring for themselves. And accomplish it at a much much lower cost point. Remove the minimum wage barrier and an individual with no skills but a willingness to work could support himself in a reasonably healthy lifestyle at $4/hr. This would, IMHO, go much further to solving these issues.

boston_clone• 5 years ago

It sounds like you’re advocating for a $4 minimum wage and a living situation that requires a vehicle, while only providing anecdata and opinion in attempt to contradict the very qualitative and well-studied benefits of social programs. Is that accurate?

I think it’s fair to say that quality of life can reach far and beyond the kind of conditions you’re describing, especially given the surplus of wealth that goes towards other government services. As a taxpayer with representation, I would prefer to see more of my dollars go toward raising the lowest standard, not rationalizing poverty for the sake of an impressive military.

aphextron2• 5 years ago

They built an encampment like this under the 27th street overpass in West Oakland. It immediately turned into a festering cesspool of filth. Putting people in doghouses is not a solution to the homeless problem.

jxramos• 5 years ago

I happened to be touring the area in the not too recent past and had to travel by Amtrak long distance. When it passed through Oakland and the east bay I couldn't believe the devastated scenes I was able to witness. These sights are otherwise hidden from plain sight since trains typically travel through less than desirable areas. My jaw dropped. I saw stretches of abandoned vehicles, burned out vehicles, trash piles, shanty towns, it was crazy.

dmingod666• 5 years ago

This looks like a couple of iterations behind the multi story slums found in various parts of Mumbai and other parts of Asia..

dawnerd• 5 years ago

The micro/tiny homes in Portland seem to be doing pretty well. Hasn't turned into a disaster like some people said would happen. It sure beats seeing people living in their own trash piles under bridges. It's really sad the gov isn't doing more, and gets upset when people try to help. The people who complain about homeless camps are also the same ones partially responsible for it in the first place.

aphextron2• 5 years ago

The people who complain about homeless camps are also the same ones partially responsible for it in the first place.

We are all responsible at some level for not holding politicians accountable for a problem that they created. The real problem is the long term, destitute, mentally ill homeless. Not the crust kids or the down on their luck people who are out of work. They can be handled mostly with jobs programs, community outreach, and a housing based approach. But the people who are physically incapable of caring for themselves require legal intervention. We used to institutionalize these people, and give them some modicum of a dignified life, but that ended with the Reagan administration [0]. The result is that now we literally treat stray dogs with more compassion in this country.

[0] https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-re...

lazyasciiart8• 5 years ago

There's plenty of evidence that even people who can't fully care for themselves will be better off in supportive housing. For a simple example, it's a lot easier to stay on medication when the bottle is in the same place every time you need it.

specialist3• 5 years ago

There are numerous encampments near my house.

Options for upgrading the typical tent to shelters, yurts, microhomes would be awesome.

Society should also provide ad hoc sanitation, waste management, misc safety and convenience. These semi permanent encampments should automatically get honeypots, water stations, trash bins, and so forth.

Something, anything. Just to make their lives less terrible, less dangerous.

fshbbdssbbgdd• 5 years ago

The city won’t allow professional homebuilders to construct enough real housing units that meet the building code, why would they let amateurs build pseudo housing?

the_only_law• 5 years ago

I have a feeling they won’t. I saw a video about a similar project in LA. City came down on it hard while some bureaucrat rambled on about some vague “plan to end homelessness” of his.

paulcarroty• 5 years ago

Wow, this is truly hacker spirit! Appreciate it as Christian and carpenter assistant in young age.

ilaksh2• 5 years ago

If you look at history you will see that this situation has occurred several times in the past on a fairly predictable schedule. It is generally followed by large-scale warfare which resolves the economic issues by deploying massive coordinated killing efforts.

eplanit• 5 years ago

We're due and ready. China seems ready, too, and without them we're ready for civil war on our own. It's tragically, unfortunately true, that a (big) war would be like a reset... economic rebuilding follows, but in what kind of society and economic organization would then be the question.

I think a civil war is exactly what the CCP wants (obviously) and is fomenting. It would destroy us. Ww3 would probably unify us, but carries huge risks. Fun times.

mythrwy• 5 years ago

If we have a civil war who will buy the nonstick frying pans? And the fanatics who win have the bomb pointed at them?

I think they'd rather we slowly wound down in a predictable fashion.

ilaksh2• 5 years ago

To be clear, I believe that wars are tragic and criminal, and that humans have always at least pretended to be better than animals. But wars bring humans down to the level of ant colonies.

We really are better than ants though. And individual human lives have value. There is no reason for war to resolve our technical issues. The economy is a technical and logistical problem.

tasubotadas• 5 years ago

Yeah... Everybody is kind-spirited until you start living in slums. What's a pity here that the media is doing victimbaiting to get some extra page views.

Most of the people do not want to have random and scruffy-looking shacks on side-walks while they are getting to work in the morning.

The local government is just enforcing that because that's the job they've been elected to do. That might be a hard pill to swallow for somebody who likes to pretend that they care about other people, but, most likely, that municipality will be reelected because most people support what they are doing.

zarzavat• 5 years ago

If cities don't want slums to exist, they need to provide subsidised housing. Shelter is a basic human need, so either a city builds it or people will build their own.

webinvest• 5 years ago

No, the city can just provide public land away from the city center where people are permitted to set up their own tents. Like in a fruit orchard or something.

Budgets are very constrained to the amounts permitted by sales, property, and excise taxes with many voters not really wanting to increase the first two. In my city, the city has already closed down 3/4ths of the libraries due to budget constraints.

The cost-benefit analysis of creating subsidized housing oftentimes just doesn’t pan out and there are better uses of city funds —- like on libraries.

torgian• 5 years ago

I was homeless for a few months. It was shit, and the shelter I was able to access was just ok, but not a safe place.

This guy saw a need and did something. Whether it is legal or not, isn’t the question. Why the government isn’t working with him rather than against him is the real question.

Very few people have the balls to even try anything to help, even just giving money. The fact the government doesn’t want to tackle the homeless problem is just another version of “wait until they go away”.

This is not a new problem. Not all homeless people are druggies or crazies. And the homeless problem will only get worse, not better.

It’s too bad Toronto wants to waste time and resources on seeking legal action on the guy for trying to do the right thing.

uzakov6• 5 years ago

I am very sorry to hear about your experience I hope all is better now. My comments are by no means an attack on you.

Whether it is legal or not, isn’t the question.

I think it's perfectly normal to discuss whether things are legal or not. IANAL but what that person did seems illegal to me.

Very few people have the balls to even try anything to help, even just giving money.

Would you not agree anyone who pays taxes is technically speaking helping?

Why the government isn’t working with him rather than against him is the real question.

Many organisations follow very top-down approach and it might be extremely difficult for staff "on the ground" to make big decisions.

Y-bar3• 5 years ago

[...] but what that person did seems illegal to me.

Reminds me of this quote:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

There are many laws which are unjust, what is right and what is legal does not always align. Maybe it was illegal. But should it really be?

To me what this person did looked about as illegal as someone breaking an entry into a burning house to aid the people inside.

kderbyma2• 5 years ago

illegal is not the point....he did a good thing. the law is wrong. Toronto is a bureaucratic nightmare and they would help people if it doesn't align with their corruption.

musingsole• 5 years ago

Would you not agree anyone who pays taxes is technically speaking helping?

No. Paying a tax bill doesn't get anyone any karma points for helping anything unless you also get them for every bomb dropped and person executed.

Woodi• 5 years ago

Again, real problem is socialism [thinking] - that system will resolve all problems. But any systems are unperfect - "never say never" do not apply here.

We have society/tax/government sponsored homeless shelters, food points, social workers etc etc. But it is obviously not enough because every "system" is generalization -> some or most cases are resolved but some cases are lost.

More, having "help system" sometimes PROHIBITS real help, example: article above ! It is epidemy and they prohibit more then sensible help ! Possible fire problem ? Or just someone didn't like this ? Other example: some baker was giving free food to poor peoples and government tax institution send him to court because someone (poor people) gained somerealynothing and no tax was paid... - beyound stupidity or evil .

Even more: when there is official help system some people take it as excuse for not doing personal help, eg: "GO TO FOOD POINT YOU $%%*(&^". Socialism mentality is like this. Plus corruption acceptance, IMO always.

Help systems are part of our better civilisation. But preventing personal help is effective destroying that civilisation.

My proposition: every city clerk take one mini-wooden-shelter with homeless person on his house front grass lawn. And providing some food for your poor neighber is pretty obvious, right ?

estreeper• 5 years ago

For testimonials from some of the people living in these Toronto tiny shelters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdbmLKaGleg

Some interesting notes about the shelters from the video:

- they are on wheels, and because they're off the ground they stay warm and dry even when it's raining

- they can be locked from the outside or inside, which gives people a sense of safety (e.g. people's tents can get slashed up, but these are strong), and they can also safely leave possessions there

- they let people sleep much better (longer, more comfortable)

The amount having these things improves a person's psychological state is immense.

jobjob4• 5 years ago

They could not put a single picture of these ‘tiny shelters’ in the whole article?

greatgib• 5 years ago

I will not say that it is nice for homeless, but who want a slum to be created in the middle of a clean modern city?

Think about all the other problems that this create for the other inhabitants related to hygiene, trash, ...

Similarly parks are parks, and woods are woods, if you setup slum houses there, they are not parks and become towns...

mattjaynes• 5 years ago

To see a short interview of the carpenter along with some footage of the construction of the shelters, here's a Good Morning America segment on the story: https://youtu.be/0zkrH6yquWM

kingsuper20• 5 years ago

I'm always a bit unsatisfied with the reasons given for homelessness and the handwaving that goes on.

(anecdote alert) Being old enough to have seen a real sea change in the problem, I'm unconvinced that the town I grew up in (which went from essentially zero homeless people in the 1960s to a very largish and noticeable contingent now) had a huge increase in alcohol/drug abuse, house price to income ratio (I looked it up), ramp up in mentally ill.

It's easy to slide into using changes in the social substrate (single parent households, death of small business, lack of peer pressure, lack of strict law enforcement) as reasons, but then the handwaving just starts all over again.

As far as building small people-boxes is concerned, I've seen that very movie before, and more than once. What usually happens is that some local stores donate materials in order to gain social credit score, people get together over a couple of weekends to screw together moveable teeny-tiny houses, declare victory, in six months the wood has become scrap and is dragged out of the woods or vacant lots bit by bit. I'm not so sure that a favela, if that's really what you want, can be grown inorganically.

overton2• 5 years ago

Maybe if the city of Toronto isn't happy with tiny shelters, maybe they should allow new 'proper' houses to be built. Toronto is the sixth most expensive housing market (by income) in the world, yet they still mostly use a 1960's era city plan that forbids dense residential development in most areas. People talk a lot about mental illness and drug addiction, which undoubtedly is part of the problem, but when you have such an extreme cost of living burden for living in a basically mediocre city, I'm not sure why anybody is surprised at the social problems that result.

alexashka2• 5 years ago

Do you really think the solution to homeless people is to just build more buildings and give it to them for free?

Hint: if you announce to the world that you're doing that, there'll suddenly be a lot of homeless people coming from everywhere to partake in your generosity.

As an aside: I'm in need of money, how much are you willing to give me? You'd be resulting in a social problem by not giving me money. Let me know how much you're personally invested in solving social problems.

If you think it's an absurd ask, I agree. That's exactly how I feel about the homeless. If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to, anymore than I get to take some of your money because you happen to have more.

overton2• 5 years ago

Did I say for free? No, I didn't. The idea is that you allow anybody to build more supply, and the price comes down.

Did I make any mention of spending to solve the problem? No, I didn't so quit putting words in my mouth.

Making economic migrants of everyone is not a good solution. Believe it or not, some people have roots in their communities. Not to mention cities are where jobs and amenities are. What, is everybody going to move to Barrie all of a sudden? Terrible idea and 100% lacking in empathy or good sense. Oh also I don't know if you noticed but the housing crisis is national now.

gbanfalvi• 5 years ago

Pretty sure the parent poster wasn’t talking about giving building housing and giving it away for free.

they still mostly use a 1960's era city plan that forbids dense residential development in most areas.

I big source of homelessness is... well... simply being priced out of living somewhere.

If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to

I don’t think most people live where they do out of some sense of entitlement. They just live there because that’s what they once could afford or where they found work. Losing one’s home can also mean losing one’s job and ultimately homelessness. Bad city planning only worsens income inequality and the only ones benefitting from this are landlords and speculators.

fsociety• 5 years ago

Ha placing homeless people on mass into very small towns doesn’t help. My small town had a major influx of homeless from the big city and we didn’t have the resources or opportunities to help them.

Also you seem to be responding to things the original poster didn’t say.

ivankolev• 5 years ago

Somehow related to the general problem of lack of housing, in Toronto you could build laneway suites [0], and there is a proposal to allow backyard suites.

[0] https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/community-partners/a...

Toronto carpenter builds 'tiny shelters' for the homeless. The city isn't happy

Related Stories