Engineer Converts Used Van into Mobile Laundromat, Offers Free Loads to Homeless(nbcbayarea.com)
nbcbayarea.com
Engineer Converts Used Van into Mobile Laundromat, Offers Free Loads to Homeless
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/apple-engineer-converts-used-van-into-mobile-laundromat-offers-free-loads-to-homeless/46829/
79 comments
Because Americans don't have a culture of taking care of each other. They rely on the government to do it, government doesn't always want to, and the citizens don't demand that government does it.
Source: am American & formerly homeless
Source: am American & formerly homeless
If root cause we're cultural you'd suspect another rich country like France would have better numbers, but they don't:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-homeless-people...
Japan seems to do pretty well. There seems to be a culture there that the person above is talking about. But far more important is they allow the kind of hostels and low cost housing that has been regulated out of existence in a lot of modern countries and cities. For instance, cyber cafes and capsule hotels which are as cheap as $10 a night are extremely popular with the poorest Japanese.
However if I were expecting to be homeless soon I would wish to be in Finland.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle...
However if I were expecting to be homeless soon I would wish to be in Finland.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle...
Of course the article is about someone who does take care of others instead of waiting for the government to do it. Hopefully there will be more people like that in the future.
This wasn't pure charity. This is religious outreach, proselytization.
>> Powers saw a way to address a need in his community and share his faith in the process. A devout Christian, he wanted to shift from discussing the teachings of the church to living them out by helping others.
>> Powers saw a way to address a need in his community and share his faith in the process. A devout Christian, he wanted to shift from discussing the teachings of the church to living them out by helping others.
[deleted]
so you think he should stop? (answer: no)
I would have to know more about the situation. Providing a laundry service is good, but is a mobile service better than putting those resources into a fixed site? And, because this is private charity, how much of a tax deduction is this guy taking? Is he deducting the cost of the vehicle? If he is taking deductions then this activity is being effectively subsidized by taxpayers. That money might be better spent more efficiently on other services.
It's doubtful that this one guy is a registered charity. As a private individual you can't just claim your expenses and actions as a deduction. It's also kind of sad that your first thought when you see someone who decided to do something in his own way help your big concern is he's "inefficiently using tax deductions for his personal project". Maybe you should examine your own contributions?
>> "Powers started the program, which he dubbed Loads of Love, last year after seeing a YouTube video about Orange Sky Laundry."
The California "Loads of Love" charity which this person seems to have founded http://www.loadsoflovesb.org/
How to make donations: https://www.networkforgood.org/donation/MakeDonation.aspx
Their FAQ re Tax: https://networkforgood.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/1150073...
"Network for Good issues tax receipts at the time of donations."
So ya, this is does seem to be a registered charity and donations are tax deductible.
The California "Loads of Love" charity which this person seems to have founded http://www.loadsoflovesb.org/
How to make donations: https://www.networkforgood.org/donation/MakeDonation.aspx
Their FAQ re Tax: https://networkforgood.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/1150073...
"Network for Good issues tax receipts at the time of donations."
So ya, this is does seem to be a registered charity and donations are tax deductible.
There is a strong sentiment in the US against paying more taxes in general to level the playing field a bit and help people in need, it's usually labeled as socialism. And now it's not even ok to use the incentives put in place for people who want to give extra money? Registering as a charity is the only way to make donations tax deductible, taking that away would basically reduce the donation and their effectiveness by the average tax rate of people with money to give, and they are usually not in the 12% bracket.
At this point I'm not a fan of higher taxes because the cost of living is going through the roof. If we had good healthcare not attached to employment, a modest cost of living, and effective social programs, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes.
I hope that more people are charitable. I don't hope there is a need for it. So many news stories of individual charity like this aren't uplifting. They are actually a depressing reminder of the failure of society and by extension government. Collectively we don't prioritize a social safety net. Some groups and ideologies reject government's role in a safety net or worse that the unfortunate are undeserving of basics like shelter and laundry.
Individual charity doesn't work at scale. Organized private charity doesn't work at scale. This is why the social security administration was established.
Individual charity doesn't work at scale. Organized private charity doesn't work at scale. This is why the social security administration was established.
> Americans don't have a culture of taking care of each other. They rely on the government to do it,
Surely it is the other way about. Americans give to charity much more than Europeans as far as I can tell and volunteering and doing things like this engineer's mobile laundry seem much more common in the US. On the other hand governments in Europe (at least northern Europe which is the part i know most about) seem to put rather more effort into housing the homeless and making the lot of those without a job more bearable.
Surely it is the other way about. Americans give to charity much more than Europeans as far as I can tell and volunteering and doing things like this engineer's mobile laundry seem much more common in the US. On the other hand governments in Europe (at least northern Europe which is the part i know most about) seem to put rather more effort into housing the homeless and making the lot of those without a job more bearable.
Americans will take care of their family and their community. This generally does not extend to a random homeless person.
Isn't a random homeless person part of their community?
No.
Unless you redefine community to mean 'anyone within a particular geographic area' which renders the concept meaningless.
Unless you redefine community to mean 'anyone within a particular geographic area' which renders the concept meaningless.
I get that they are not necessarily a part of their community, but the responses to my comment have been that he is necessarily not a part of that person's community just because one is homeless. What about the area in between? Like couldn't a person befriend a "random homeless person", and then that person becomes very much a part of their community?
they're part of the homeless community, but that doesn't help much. Homeless people do try to look out for each other, but lack of resources and personal demons make that hard. Community is far more than physical proximty; it's often the opposite where living near each other is a symptom of the underlying values, beliefs and shared traits. There are lots of communities in the same physical area.
I've often wondered, don't the people who are homeless have family who are not homeless? And if so, why isn't their family taking care of them?
Sadly, they do. And often times this is the help their family ended up at.
If you stroll into homeless communities you'll see a pretty common thread: Addiction. When someone ends up homeless due to drug/alcohol abuse, there's often very little a family can do to (productively) help short of an ultimatum "Get Help or Get Out". Whether it's effective/right or not, many of those families feel they are taking care of them by giving them the choice of continuing to live the life they've chosen or accept help ... with a myriad of conditions attached.
If you stroll into homeless communities you'll see a pretty common thread: Addiction. When someone ends up homeless due to drug/alcohol abuse, there's often very little a family can do to (productively) help short of an ultimatum "Get Help or Get Out". Whether it's effective/right or not, many of those families feel they are taking care of them by giving them the choice of continuing to live the life they've chosen or accept help ... with a myriad of conditions attached.
There's degrees of homelessness. At first you're sleeping on a friend's couch or something. By the time someone is actually living on the street or in a shelter they have burned those relationships.
Source: have had a friend slide into homelessness. It was horrible for all friends and family, and probably worst of all for the one becoming homeless.
Source: have had a friend slide into homelessness. It was horrible for all friends and family, and probably worst of all for the one becoming homeless.
Honestly, I decided to go straight to homelessness because I didn't want to strain my personal relationships any further. I tried talking to friends about needing a place to stay. But being in San Francisco, everyone's house was tiny & expensive. They simply didn't have a place for me. I talked with my parents about moving home, and they would have let me stay there, but they also said they weren't thrilled at the idea of having a broke, depressed adult dependent living in their house & asking for money/food/everything. I would have gone home if I REALLY had to, but I managed to get myself to stability before needing to do that.
Good point about burning those relationships. As I mentioned previously about "addiction", if you've ever had a family member who's an addict, you can see real quickly how those relationships get burned.
After you've elected to trust that individual one more time only to find the last remaining valuables you owned have been pawned for a fix.
After you've elected to trust that individual one more time only to find the last remaining valuables you owned have been pawned for a fix.
There's a lot of homelessness in queer youth because they've been disowned by their families.
People in poverty have difficulty accessing health care, and birth control goes along with that. Depending where you live, there might be a holy war being waged on free birth control. If your parents are homeless, you might be put in a foster home until you're old enough to be a homeless adult.
People in poverty have difficulty accessing health care, and birth control goes along with that. Depending where you live, there might be a holy war being waged on free birth control. If your parents are homeless, you might be put in a foster home until you're old enough to be a homeless adult.
I enjoyed watching Pose, which touches on this topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pose_(TV_series)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pose_(TV_series)
> Americans will take care of their family and their community.
Given the numbers of homeless, obviously many do not. Not even for vets who risked their lives and gave their physical and mental health for their country.
Given the numbers of homeless, obviously many do not. Not even for vets who risked their lives and gave their physical and mental health for their country.
this is a relatively new phenomenon; in the past we had a lot more benevolent and faith based organizations that we've displaced with government services. Far less people a active members of churches and nobody joins the elks, shriners, knights of columbus, etc. anymore that I know. We're also far more transient and have moved to big cities in huge numbers. None of these things encourage the community and connectivity that caring for each other demands.
It seems to me that people the works over think it is the homeless’s own fault they are homeless. That’s the problem.
I wonder how American culture evolved for self reliance over time, or what are the underlying causes for it.
This is a question without any prejudice. I'm from another part of pale blue dot where the situation is exact opposite.
This is a question without any prejudice. I'm from another part of pale blue dot where the situation is exact opposite.
Only a few centuries ago many Americans lived on the frontier. Frontier life has been venerated by many since then. This gives rise to the popularity self-reliance, guns, rural and suburb living, small government and privatization, deregulation, car ownership over public transportation, etc.
Part of the American psyche is an emphasis on the individual over the state, and smaller tribes over larger communal groups. This creates the narrative of self-reliance and making it on your own, regardless if it is true or not.
> what are the underlying causes
I don't want to reduce this complex issues to just one cause, but
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic
might help to understand at least parts of what we are seeing.
I don't want to reduce this complex issues to just one cause, but
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic
might help to understand at least parts of what we are seeing.
that's definitely part of what made America today through the initial settlement from Western Europe. A big challenge is that population growth is not coming from the same areas anymore, so expecting the same driving values is probabvly not going to work. True or not, the USA is still a beacon for opportunity and an escape from some pretty dire places. The lack of social safety systems is a polarizing but effective marketing tool for the people it attracts.
In terms of GDP per capita, the U.S. is not the richest country in the world.
If one deducts the fraction of GDP spent on propping up terrible regimes, it has even less to spend on citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
If one deducts the fraction of GDP spent on propping up terrible regimes, it has even less to spend on citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
For the same reason there is little to no universal health care, welfare, retirement, workers rights, or higher education system — the US values short-term profit over basic humanity.
> For the same reason there is little to no universal health care, welfare, retirement, workers rights, or higher education system — the US values short-term profit over basic humanity.
For many, going to school for 7 years to become a surgeon is motivated by the lifestyle/paycheck that being a good surgeon can offer. For many, having to pay for healthcare keeps them from using the services unnecessarily, and not getting care. In countries where universal healthcare exists, some people who need care wait in line for it. Neither are good outcomes. But summarizing an opposing political viewpoint with "Those guys are just dumb/evil" rather than trying to understand the complexity of all of the issues involved (even if the outcome is "good for you" but "bad for someone else" and being willing to weigh those two outcomes as equal with participants who have an equal right to their life/liberty/property) is one of the reasons we are where we are in America.
> I do not require anything out of anyone else in order to exercise the variety of rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
Being able to read and write helps and that seems to be best provided by universal primary education, which does seem to be provided as a right in the US (even though it is not guaranteed by the constitution).
Being healthy also helps and that seems to be best provided by universal free at point of use healthcare, which is not provided as a right in the US.
Why should you get one 'free' and the other not? After all the education also has to be paid for by someone else.
Being able to read and write helps and that seems to be best provided by universal primary education, which does seem to be provided as a right in the US (even though it is not guaranteed by the constitution).
Being healthy also helps and that seems to be best provided by universal free at point of use healthcare, which is not provided as a right in the US.
Why should you get one 'free' and the other not? After all the education also has to be paid for by someone else.
Yet countries that borrow multiples of their entire GDP and shift this burden onto future generations are growing for the long term? It's a little more complicated than you lay it out.
No workers rights, despite the same unions as other countries, legal protections and regulations? No higher education, despite the greatest concentration of attractive universities in the entire world? Do you actually believe your statement or was it made to ellict the emotional response I had?
No workers rights, despite the same unions as other countries, legal protections and regulations? No higher education, despite the greatest concentration of attractive universities in the entire world? Do you actually believe your statement or was it made to ellict the emotional response I had?
There is no universal retirement? Social security doesn’t count? No welfare?
That’s not true. Or if it’s true then Canada doesn’t have those either.
That’s not true. Or if it’s true then Canada doesn’t have those either.
> But how come there are so many homeless people in the richest country in the world?
Unfortunately, it feels a lot like "it's someone else's problem to solve" ... unless the solution is complaining about others not solving the problem. Or that supporting "public policy", higher taxes and things "The Government Should Be Doing" is enough (or even a good idea)[0].
But it's so hard to do something ... it's not. Find a good church. Don't like religion? Find a good service organization. The church I attend, every single Sunday, directly pushes us to "go out into the community". This place does it differently, in some ways, than others. Rather than a top-down "here's the organizations we support" with leadership running them, they encourage members to "go out and do" and if what you're doing is working, they -- for lack of a better word, provide the marketing[1]. They'll provide financial support, too, but it's rarely needed. Out of that, we have hundreds of small service groups, many of which were founded a few hours after a Sunday service by a "someone who showed up that day".
There was a woman at my church who decided to load up on supplies and hop in her minivan driving around the worst parts of Detroit to hand underwear, toothbrushes, and food to drug-addicted sex workers a few years ago. I don't know the latest count, but they were running 8 vans of them within a few months and several volunteers came from the streets the vans were visiting. We have several volunteer run groups that operate like Habitat for Humanity, and we have a rotating shelter staffed with volunteers. There's plenty of ways to reach out to a fellow human being who's life you could be a part of and plenty of fellow human beings who need volunteers to help.
They're doing something right, for sure. Best I can tell is that they encourage us to "take ownership of the problem" and "lead by doing" -- so these groups are all run by people who "go to church on Sunday" rather than "Professional Christians(tm)". They don't worry as much about people going out and "doing something that'll make the church look bad". AFAIK, it's not happened in the 20 years I've been there despite the approach[2], and many of our volunteers don't look like your typical "Sunday Best Church Folks".
My apologies if this sounds like I'm scolding -- I'm am, but I'm no better than those complaining about "Americans Not Doing Anything(tm)" -- it's been a year since I've done any volunteer work and as I've gotten older, the amount of volunteering I've done has been less and less. In my 20s, I was much more involved, and as is typical -- kids/job -- I've made a series of excuses that have kept me from being more involved. I'm tired. I worked hard. I don't have the energy to volunteer. It's stupid thinking, really. I've never left a volunteer activity feeling anything other than awesome and filled with energy.
[0] If the extent of your support for the homeless begins and ends here, it's worth doing a bit of research to determine if your support is counterproductive, or -- worst case -- if the program in question exists to employ a bureaucrat rather than solve a problem.
[1] That sounds really wrong the way it's stated, but my church is a multi-campus large organization. The hard part of any volunteer activity is volunteers. Though external funding is sometimes needed, money is very rarely the problem -- getting people's time is. A huge number of people want to volunteer but want to help doing something that they're comfortable doing. When a church has as many service groups as ours does, there's something that fits -- the tricky part is getting that information out widely enough that you connect the volunteer with the job (and make it one-click to sign-up).
[2] There's no organizations dedicated to anything political/picketing/culture wars -- they don't operate that way. It makes them a little unpopular with the "Big Churches" but if the established folks (most of whom lead dead congregations) are upset and can't articulate the reasons, that's a pretty good indicator that we're doing something right.
I'd be quite interested how he meets the power requirements, is he using electric dryers? I feel like a vans alternator has no hope of running 1 let alone 2 of them. Also what does the freshwater/wastewater system looks like?
Looks like he has an onboard generator, two tanks for fresh and discarded water.
The video also talks about external connections for power and water if it's available.
The video also talks about external connections for power and water if it's available.
Here is a video explaining his setup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE8rgFAOXgY
In the video below, he mentions they are gas powered driers.
Ahh my ad blocker got rid of the video. Thank you.
I was interested in that aspect of the story when I clicked into it, but I'm not really disappointed that it wasn't covered. Turns out it wasn't really the point anyway.
That said, he could easily have a generator rigged up to supply power. A lot of RVs have on-board washers and dryers, so the technology is widely available. If I were going to do something like this, I'd try to find dryers that heated with propane both for efficiency and to limit the electrical draw on the generator.
That said, he could easily have a generator rigged up to supply power. A lot of RVs have on-board washers and dryers, so the technology is widely available. If I were going to do something like this, I'd try to find dryers that heated with propane both for efficiency and to limit the electrical draw on the generator.
[deleted]
(2017)
Seems like a good project anyway. This idea should be spread around.
Seems like a good project anyway. This idea should be spread around.
It's hard to tell, but it seems like it has spread. A search shows that there are a number of charities/ministries with the same name offering similar services nationwide.
I remember seeing this years ago, and as this article's date says "2017" that's probably when I saw it. I wonder what's happened in the 4 years between then and now, a quick Twitter search doesn't generate any hits, is he still around, if not, why not?
Still around - Last FB post was March 14 looks like...
https://www.lolo-sc.com/
https://www.lolo-sc.com/
It's sad that one of the most richest places on Earth (the San Francisco Bay Area) is unable to house, feed, clothe and provide drug/alcohol/mental health treatment to a mere 10,000 homeless people.
I know homelessness is more than "houselessness", but it seems like a pretty simple problem to solve. Even considering that other states bus their homeless to Calfornia, fixing the 600,000 who sleep outside (and the 1.5 million who visit homeless shelters each year) doesn't seem particularly difficult.
Though obviously mobile laundromats are a complete waste of finite resources and absolutely not the way to solve homelessness.
I know homelessness is more than "houselessness", but it seems like a pretty simple problem to solve. Even considering that other states bus their homeless to Calfornia, fixing the 600,000 who sleep outside (and the 1.5 million who visit homeless shelters each year) doesn't seem particularly difficult.
Though obviously mobile laundromats are a complete waste of finite resources and absolutely not the way to solve homelessness.
Most problems seem pretty simple until one actively tries to solve them.
One thing that _is_ actually simple is simply criticizing.
I would argue that a lot more good has been done by individuals that decided to "do something about it" that big government initiatives.
One thing that _is_ actually simple is simply criticizing.
I would argue that a lot more good has been done by individuals that decided to "do something about it" that big government initiatives.
> I would argue that a lot more good has been done by individuals that decided to "do something about it" that big government initiatives.
"It's amazing to me in a country as rich as ours", "In a city with the wealth of San Francisco", etc... Check your calendar. How many of us did something, last year, anything (beyond voting/picketing/"complaining") that directly helped this problem?
Hell, how many of us gave even $100 to an organization helping the homeless? How many of us even did the basic research to find a suitable organization to donate to (rather than just tossing that money at a charity run like a big government initiative)? There was a movement a while back to get people used to the idea of spending $4.00 for an app (you spend that much on a cup of coffee!). We have tons of government initiatives to help with poverty/homelessness. Upset that too much of our taxes are spent on war? Your donation is tax deductible. So tossing some money at a homeless support organization results in you indirectly re-balancing things. Less of your money supports things you don't and the money you've moved away from things you "do support" is being used more efficiently toward that support.
> how many of us gave even $100 to an organization helping the homeless?
I did.
> How many of us even did the basic research to find a suitable organization to donate to (rather than just tossing that money at a charity run like a big government initiative)?
You may sneer at "big government". But the advantage of having an efficient government that does good work is people can simply throw their money at it and assume that things will be taken care of. By making everyone do research, it increases the barrier to help for a lot of people . Not everyone has the time or knows what to look for in a good charitable org.
Imagine if government health inspectors didn't exist and you had to rely on Yelp reviews and word of mouth to decide if a restaurant was clean enough to eat at.
> Your donation is tax deductible.
Only if you itemize taxes. Most renters do not. And it's a deduction to taxable income, not a tax credit.
I did.
> How many of us even did the basic research to find a suitable organization to donate to (rather than just tossing that money at a charity run like a big government initiative)?
You may sneer at "big government". But the advantage of having an efficient government that does good work is people can simply throw their money at it and assume that things will be taken care of. By making everyone do research, it increases the barrier to help for a lot of people . Not everyone has the time or knows what to look for in a good charitable org.
Imagine if government health inspectors didn't exist and you had to rely on Yelp reviews and word of mouth to decide if a restaurant was clean enough to eat at.
> Your donation is tax deductible.
Only if you itemize taxes. Most renters do not. And it's a deduction to taxable income, not a tax credit.
> the advantage of having an efficient government that does good work is people can simply throw their money at it and assume that things will be taken care of
Unfortunately, what usually occurs is this large, resource-heavy (financially both directly and indirectly) organization becomes a really attractive target for people wanting to do things other than "help the homeless". And I'm not really picking entirely on government here. There are some very large charities that have made the mistake of attempting to centrally manage these sorts of assistance programs. It doesn't work as well as moving that money to local organizations that are already demonstrating their effectiveness.
> Imagine if government health inspectors didn't exist and you had to rely on Yelp reviews and word of mouth to decide if a restaurant was clean enough to eat at.
To be clear: I'm not saying taking away government inspections wouldn't result in things being worse than they are, today. I'm simply saying that given the choice between the two, I'd feel safer in a world with Yelp and no government inspections than the other way around[1]. I don't have data to back it up, and I'm one of those people that always looks up a place before we eat (my wife usually beats me too it, though). The "fun" stories I used to hear from my high-on locker partner about how he "got that large arm bandage" cooking at Ram's Horn... you don't want to know.
Outside of restaurants, I would trust a large number of positive reviews (assuming appropriate context) for a hair stylist who is unlicensed (hypothetically, since I've never really paid any attention to the funny looking document hanging by the mirror -- I assume I've never visited an unlicensed stylist, but I can't be certain) over a stylist with a license and no reviews.
There's a whole lot of services I'd be willing to ditch the government side for commercial options that didn't exist when the government option was created. I don't believe there's an adequate replacement for credentialing for doctors/surgeons, but -- even in those scenarios, if I have a choice, I'm going to research the hell out of that doctor -- the government-only solutions are helpful, but they're part of a broader set of data -- much of which are not/can't realistically be provided from the government source.
> ... taxable income ...
[0] And had tens of visible violations -- one of which wagged its tail, looked longingly at me and occasionally left a foul-smelling gift. We loved the place, were never sick, and we ate there twice most weekends for three summers (as did many local celebrities, which was one of the reasons we loved the place).
[1] I've put a little though to this one over the years ... Family who owned restaurants/personal/friends/family experience in food service. I have a sibling who was a C-Level exec at the company who's logo is on all of the equipment in the kitchen (I've even seen it on flatware) at practically every legally operating restaurant in the US (look at the soft drink machine for three letters in a circle -- they're one of those weird ubiquitous logos, like UL, that once pointed out, you see everywhere)
I gave $12,000 to affordable-housing nonprofits last year. If just 5 other people did the same every year, we could almost sustain one tent [0].
The costs involved here are a bottomless pit. That donation made me feel good, but if it helped even one person, it was only for a couple of months.
Housing in San Francisco is a zero sum game. Unless attitudes towards development and density can be changed, the only way to house 10,000 people is to outbid 10,000 others. It is hard for a charity to win that game.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-...
The costs involved here are a bottomless pit. That donation made me feel good, but if it helped even one person, it was only for a couple of months.
Housing in San Francisco is a zero sum game. Unless attitudes towards development and density can be changed, the only way to house 10,000 people is to outbid 10,000 others. It is hard for a charity to win that game.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-...
San Francisco is an interesting place, and far from the world I live in -- definitely does not have the kind of cost of living famous of San Francisco. It's interesting -- every place has a set of its own unique problems, but hop over to San Francisco, and you folks just get to figure out how to handle all of them, it seems.
Our cost of living is high, especially considering surrounding areas, but $12,000 would be a dream budget for projects I've done. While it's hard for "a charity to win that game", there are things a charity can do that a business cannot.
The example that comes to mind was a nightmare project I did two days on. The story was the foundation was bad, we had a terrible spring, the basement started torrent-leaking revealing mold and other dangerous things (it was finished, to boot). The water was up to your neck when I saw it the first time. It took four weekends (and a few Thursdays for some of the teams), I believe it was high 4-figures, most spent a month before on environmental-related -- high cost even when the services are being nearly donated.
Outside of that, We had a master electrician and plumber, a licensed architect who owned a local survey company, many former builders, and between them got the cement company donated labour on with nothing more than a phone call and an explanation. This was all done for no real benefit to those providing the services -- this was a small church program that if you called their direct line would likely take several tries to find someone who even knew we were affiliated with them. Almost all of our weekend labour were folks who had jobs/owned other companies and attended my church on Sunday[0]. It was the most difficult job that I can ever remember working on. My favorite part is that all of the work "us inexperienced jackasses" (those of us, like me, who hobby in this stuff but haven't done it for a living) had everything we did pass inspection on the first go. Generally, everything did, but the project was delayed for a few weeks because the mold removal was incomplete and (I think) the sump Radon system needed a near re-do, and I believe the latter one was something we had to pay someone to handle, originally[1]
[0] That's not always the case -- our church doesn't do the whole "we only talk with Jesus People" thing. I remember because this specific case, the owner of the cement company (initially, uncomfortably, probably out of fear we'd be interested in Bible-Thumping him) let us know he is Jewish. He stayed 6 hours after his truck left, hanging off the side of the house nailing in boards for the roof repairs (he looked about 80, I'd guess he was 70+cigarettes). Incidentally, he saved us thousands of dollars because the roofing company just ... didn't show up, phone disconnected ... vanished into thin-air ... and he ended up getting the entirety of a two-day estimated job done with another man and his 20-year old son.
[1] ...and I remember this specifically because we were really frustrated. Ended up that one of our "former construction" guys took copious notes, showed up the next day/ripped it out and re-did it rather than bringing back the bozos who cost a fortune and did it wrong. Certain that wasn't legal, but it passed inspection and it works. But the piles of stupid was that there was one guy who inspected each of the various things and for whatever reason, they refused to send him here one time to do each of the 5-minute inspections all at once, like makes sense for everyone involved. It wasn't even his fault -- the lone inspector had no control over his own schedule!
Our cost of living is high, especially considering surrounding areas, but $12,000 would be a dream budget for projects I've done. While it's hard for "a charity to win that game", there are things a charity can do that a business cannot.
The example that comes to mind was a nightmare project I did two days on. The story was the foundation was bad, we had a terrible spring, the basement started torrent-leaking revealing mold and other dangerous things (it was finished, to boot). The water was up to your neck when I saw it the first time. It took four weekends (and a few Thursdays for some of the teams), I believe it was high 4-figures, most spent a month before on environmental-related -- high cost even when the services are being nearly donated.
Outside of that, We had a master electrician and plumber, a licensed architect who owned a local survey company, many former builders, and between them got the cement company donated labour on with nothing more than a phone call and an explanation. This was all done for no real benefit to those providing the services -- this was a small church program that if you called their direct line would likely take several tries to find someone who even knew we were affiliated with them. Almost all of our weekend labour were folks who had jobs/owned other companies and attended my church on Sunday[0]. It was the most difficult job that I can ever remember working on. My favorite part is that all of the work "us inexperienced jackasses" (those of us, like me, who hobby in this stuff but haven't done it for a living) had everything we did pass inspection on the first go. Generally, everything did, but the project was delayed for a few weeks because the mold removal was incomplete and (I think) the sump Radon system needed a near re-do, and I believe the latter one was something we had to pay someone to handle, originally[1]
[0] That's not always the case -- our church doesn't do the whole "we only talk with Jesus People" thing. I remember because this specific case, the owner of the cement company (initially, uncomfortably, probably out of fear we'd be interested in Bible-Thumping him) let us know he is Jewish. He stayed 6 hours after his truck left, hanging off the side of the house nailing in boards for the roof repairs (he looked about 80, I'd guess he was 70+cigarettes). Incidentally, he saved us thousands of dollars because the roofing company just ... didn't show up, phone disconnected ... vanished into thin-air ... and he ended up getting the entirety of a two-day estimated job done with another man and his 20-year old son.
[1] ...and I remember this specifically because we were really frustrated. Ended up that one of our "former construction" guys took copious notes, showed up the next day/ripped it out and re-did it rather than bringing back the bozos who cost a fortune and did it wrong. Certain that wasn't legal, but it passed inspection and it works. But the piles of stupid was that there was one guy who inspected each of the various things and for whatever reason, they refused to send him here one time to do each of the 5-minute inspections all at once, like makes sense for everyone involved. It wasn't even his fault -- the lone inspector had no control over his own schedule!
It sounds like your community's affordable-housing problem is fighting the ravages of nature and entropy to build and maintain habitable structures. That is certainly not easy or cheap, but there is an amount of money that it costs, and it's theoretically possible for resources to be abundant enough that everyone clears the floor.
In San Francisco there is no changing the numbers of people who can and can't get housing. Affordable housing work can only mess with their identities.
In San Francisco there is no changing the numbers of people who can and can't get housing. Affordable housing work can only mess with their identities.
> It sounds like your community's affordable-housing problem is fighting the ravages of nature and entropy to build and maintain habitable structures.
Back when I was doing this frequently, the work was mostly centered around making homes livable/saleable that had problems the home-owners couldn't deal with (many, many cancer patients with weakened immune systems who couldn't live at home due to environmental toxins). We never touched the dangerous stuff, but after the folks in HAZMAT suits clear out, you're going to be hanging a lot of drywall, at a minimum. Often houses with these kinds of problems had several others that weren't found until the obvious problems were removed.
Reading over my responses, I'm a little disappointed at how frustrated some of them sound. While I am frustrated at folks who choose to complain rather than doing something. There's this thinking that "If I complain, then I'm putting myself outside of the group that's 'causing' the problem"...meanwhile the sentence often ends with "...in America!", where the person complaining is often located.
And, frankly, where I live -- charity, and government dollars would be better spent elsewhere.
[0] Like most who are "from Detroit", I live outside the city limits.
Homelessness and home insecurity is especially pernicious, as it ties into many other issues - income inequality, zoning and city policy, mental health.
That’s why it’s much easier to sit behind a keyboard and make snide remarks about people who actually act.
That’s why it’s much easier to sit behind a keyboard and make snide remarks about people who actually act.
I wonder if individuals stepping up decreases or increases the chance that government will solve problems that are clearly systemic in nature (and thus the responsibility of government to resolve).
Is charity making it easier for governments to shirk their responsibilities?
Is charity making it easier for governments to shirk their responsibilities?
> clearly systemic in nature
Having been involved in charities, and having witnessed the destruction that a well meaning government program can bring, I'm not sure that even if charity is making it easier for governments to shirk their responsibilities that it would really be a bad thing. That's not coming from the position of "Big Government Bad(tm)" but rather a practical one -- at least as far as America is concerned, most of the money comes from Washington and it doesn't come without strings attached. It is the least efficient way to pay for something, and they are operating in a vacuum of information.
A (local) charity is in the community and knows what the community needs. The money is spent very efficiently, and there's not much of it to spend. They get taken advantage of less frequently, as well. Even injecting government into that situation breaks it. Once a large amount of money is a potential outcome, criminal activity is not far behind -- you see small organizations getting formed out of larger ones, spending 90% of donations on administration (spending all of that money on the appearance of being the right, small, charity ... because the real ones don't have the budget for lobbiests).
>The money is spent very efficiently
Doesn't the fact that there are systemic causes at the root of a problem means that trimming the branches is not an efficient manner of resolving the issue?
Note that I am asking this as someone who spends more than 1/2 of my life "trimming the branches."
Obviously, the way that government deals with systemic issues is highly flawed, but that is all tied up in the systemic issues that need to be resolved right?
Doesn't the fact that there are systemic causes at the root of a problem means that trimming the branches is not an efficient manner of resolving the issue?
Note that I am asking this as someone who spends more than 1/2 of my life "trimming the branches."
Obviously, the way that government deals with systemic issues is highly flawed, but that is all tied up in the systemic issues that need to be resolved right?
Other states do not simply bus their homeless to California. Their social workers will ask if they have a place to go. And if they respond they have a "cousin" in California the social worker sends them on their way.
My family member is a NYC social worker and there is a bit of nudging and winking when it comes to working with the homeless. His job is to get them off the street and out the shelter and into a home. Some of that can mean purchasing bus tickets to warmer climates. Since he can't actually fly out there and verify they have a "cousin in California" he has to rely on the client being truthful.
California has the unfortunate gift of being a coastal state with temperate, dry climate. Even if it was able to house all the homeless, more would show up because who wants to be homeless, wet, and cold when you can knock out the later 2 by moving to a warmer state.
My family member is a NYC social worker and there is a bit of nudging and winking when it comes to working with the homeless. His job is to get them off the street and out the shelter and into a home. Some of that can mean purchasing bus tickets to warmer climates. Since he can't actually fly out there and verify they have a "cousin in California" he has to rely on the client being truthful.
California has the unfortunate gift of being a coastal state with temperate, dry climate. Even if it was able to house all the homeless, more would show up because who wants to be homeless, wet, and cold when you can knock out the later 2 by moving to a warmer state.
This seems to be a common theme, that these problems are easily solved with just a few extra dollars. I used to subscribe to this conclusion thinking government/people just didn't care. Then I found out NYC spends $3billion on the homeless problem every year! Yes you read that right, billion with a B [1]. Granted our numbers are a bit bigger, around 80k [2]. But if you think 10k could easily be solved in SF, then 80k with a 10 figure budget should do the trick no? Yet walk the streets and you'd have no idea. I still can't figure it out. You could build a massive sky scraper every year for $1B and house several thousand of them.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-citys-spending-on-home... [2] https://www.bowery.org/homelessness/#:~:text=people%20are%20....
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-citys-spending-on-home... [2] https://www.bowery.org/homelessness/#:~:text=people%20are%20....
> easily solved with just a few extra dollars.
There are two problems: (1) I can't guarantee I can deliver on this promise, and evidence would suggest that it's not a promise any person or group of people can make and (2) well, there's a variety of reasons a lot of us wouldn't accept that but it almost always falls into the category of "I worked for that money, I should get to choose what's done with it"[0]
Sadly, a lot of government programs designed to solve this problem become "ways for the government to employ people". The motivation to solve the problem is missing -- even stabilizing the problem would reduce the (yearly increase to the) budget for the program, which will bring the unions out. After a while, we'll start fighting "in public" about the destruction of this "valuable program" but behind closed doors the argument is about not pissing off a special interest/lobbiest of some kind.
[0] Yeah, some of us don't want to admit it but if you can't put your money where your mouth is, it's a really good idea to find out exactly why that is. If you feel it's wrong to feel entitled to the paycheck you worked for, and feel badly giving it away to something claimed a "life or death" cause, there's a moral contradiction taking place.
3 billion for 80k people is enough to give everyone a on that list a living stipend and a dedicated full-time staff. the money is being used for something else.
It's not so much "unable" as "deeply invested in exacerbating the problem".
> [...] is unable to house, feed, clothe and provide drug/alcohol/mental health treatment to a mere 10,000 homeless people.
This shouldn't be surprising at all considering that the city is already spending money on anti-homeless programs, and the 10,000 people are the people who are homeless despite those programs. Housing those 10,000 is hard because the "easy" homeless people have already been housed, and the 10,000 left are the "hard" ones. In the same way, ensuring that your SaaS is up for 1 hour isn't really hard, but ensuring that your SaaS has less than 1 hour of downtime a year (99.99% uptime) is significantly harder.
This shouldn't be surprising at all considering that the city is already spending money on anti-homeless programs, and the 10,000 people are the people who are homeless despite those programs. Housing those 10,000 is hard because the "easy" homeless people have already been housed, and the 10,000 left are the "hard" ones. In the same way, ensuring that your SaaS is up for 1 hour isn't really hard, but ensuring that your SaaS has less than 1 hour of downtime a year (99.99% uptime) is significantly harder.
Creating a rocket seems pretty simple to me when I look at the wiki page but I’m wise enough to know it’s because I’ve never tried.
> Though obviously mobile laundromats are a complete waste of finite resources and absolutely not the way to solve homelessness.
So he should just throw up his hands and let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
So he should just throw up his hands and let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
Homelessness is part of the structure of our society. If there wasn't a "hell" to avoid falling into then people would stop working.
Exactly.... it would cost a trivial amount to solve the issue...
Yup, yup. We in the USA have plenty of room and plenty of money, and we are a very generous and giving people overall, but we also often display a vindictive attitude toward our poor. We act like they are getting away with something when they live in tents and defecate on the sidewalk.
Millions of people are unhappy at their jobs. If one could just "drop out", stop working, and be provided a decent home, enough food, and medical care some percentage of those unhappy workers would do it. People with homes and jobs actually resent homeless people, which, if you think about it, is a really weird reaction to have, eh?
I'm a Bucky Fuller fan since childhood, so I've talked to a lot of people about using technology to set up a kind of utopia (economic, not political) where everyone's basic needs are met, and often folks ask, "But who would pick up the garbage?"
There's a lot to unpack there. But the underlying assumption is clear: without the threat of destitution and vagrancy no one would do the unpopular or unpleasant jobs.
I could go on, I could cite Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents"[0], or talk about the Indian Wars et. al. and the tension between the New World and Old World cultures, the stigma attached to "going native", and the hideous efforts to remake indigenous people in the image of the colonist. Or we could talk about how mainstream culture tends to revile the "hippy", the "dropout" who just wants to be at peace and live in harmony with Nature.
Long story, really, but yeah, the bottom line is that we have the technology to make a kind of secular economic utopia nearly overnight, and our problems now are mostly psychological or social.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten...
> Freud enumerates what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction, he asserts, stems from the individual's quest for instinctive freedom and civilization's contrary demand for conformity and repression of instincts.
Millions of people are unhappy at their jobs. If one could just "drop out", stop working, and be provided a decent home, enough food, and medical care some percentage of those unhappy workers would do it. People with homes and jobs actually resent homeless people, which, if you think about it, is a really weird reaction to have, eh?
I'm a Bucky Fuller fan since childhood, so I've talked to a lot of people about using technology to set up a kind of utopia (economic, not political) where everyone's basic needs are met, and often folks ask, "But who would pick up the garbage?"
There's a lot to unpack there. But the underlying assumption is clear: without the threat of destitution and vagrancy no one would do the unpopular or unpleasant jobs.
I could go on, I could cite Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents"[0], or talk about the Indian Wars et. al. and the tension between the New World and Old World cultures, the stigma attached to "going native", and the hideous efforts to remake indigenous people in the image of the colonist. Or we could talk about how mainstream culture tends to revile the "hippy", the "dropout" who just wants to be at peace and live in harmony with Nature.
Long story, really, but yeah, the bottom line is that we have the technology to make a kind of secular economic utopia nearly overnight, and our problems now are mostly psychological or social.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten...
> Freud enumerates what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction, he asserts, stems from the individual's quest for instinctive freedom and civilization's contrary demand for conformity and repression of instincts.
I volunteer you for the challenge.
[deleted]
But how come there are so many homeless people in the richest country in the world?