Home › Forums › Open Discussion › People living in vans
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 15, 2009 at 9:39 pm #671961
LindseyParticipantEmmyJane – yes, my brother was the witness. He called the police and some sort of animal protection service, I’m not sure which one.
BeachDriveGirl – that’s an excellent suggestion, but unfortunately there are no plates on these vehicles.
July 15, 2009 at 9:44 pm #671962
JoBParticipantjust to be clear about the figures quoted on those disabled parking permits…
“A city sampling in 2004 showed more than 75 percent of disabled-parking placards examined were being used improperly,”
that’s people using placards that have expired or do not belong to them.. not fraudulent claims for disabled parking permits…
i wonder what percentages would come out of a survey of people who walk their dogs off leash? or who take their dogs to the public beaches? or fail to pick up after their animals? or park illegally? or drivers who speed? or bicyclists who run stop signs? or????
and i really wonder what abuse of privilege has to do with people who have no other safe choice than living in their cars and trying to find a safe place for themselves and their families to park and night?
July 15, 2009 at 9:46 pm #671963
beachdrivegirlParticipantLindsey, if the vehicle does not have a front & back plate properly displayed they are breaking the law. Report that! If they get hassled with the $86 ticket for the no plate visable enough times they will move along. :) best of luck to you.
July 15, 2009 at 9:48 pm #671964
cjboffoliParticipantJanS: It seems a reasonable assumption that there are more people living on the streets now because of the economy. But I wonder if that is really true. Has anyone looked at this statistic? I feel like I saw plenty of campers randomly scattered on the streets of Seattle long before the economy collapsed.
I wish I had a solution to this issue. Lots of people who are much smarter than me and who are experts in the topic homelessness are hard pressed to come up with a solution that offers a lasting remedy to the issue. But just because I don’t have a solution doesn’t mean that I don’t have a right to articulate my (apparently unpopular) opinion here.
If you talk to the police I expect they’d tell you that a significant percentage of the transient population we’re talking about is comprised of people with criminal histories and who are involved in local larcenies and other crime. I’d love to think that if I give money to a homeless person at an intersection that they’d use it to buy food. But I wonder what percentage of that money goes to feeding an addiction that leaves them worse than they were without it.
How many “car residers” to you think there are in West Seattle? Are they content to be living in their cars? Would they agree that that is the best solution for them right now? Would homeless advocates agree? I would totally support (both in spirit and with my wallet) campgrounds with services like free access to clean running water and toilets if that would make things more comfortable for people who are living out of their cars. It seems a much more sensible use of money than wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on a failed system of automated toilets.
I support a number of charities every year but I can’t say that any of them are geared directly toward eradicating the problem of homelessness. Everyone seems super-concerned in this Forum thread but I wonder what percentage of posters here give significant financial support or volunteer time to services designed to help the homeless. Surely something more can be done than simply advocating for their right to live in a school bus in the alley.
I think technically it is not illegal to sleep in your car on the street in Seattle as long as you move it every 72 hours. Then again, it IS illegal to camp on City property as evidenced by the way the City has been handing the Nickelsville settlement.
Actually, maybe this is an issue worthy of an official WSB article. I wonder if any of these people would be willing to tell their sides of the story.
Filmmaker David Lynch has recently been producing a 20,000 mile, 70 day road trip back and forth across the US conducting ad hoc interviews of random people (some of whom are transients or otherwise on the fringes of society) and the stories are fascinating:
July 15, 2009 at 9:54 pm #671965
beachdrivegirlParticipantAnd as a reminder to those that do want to help fix the problem, as I have mentioned before Plymouth Housing Group is a wonderful Seattle based group that goes above & beyond with their programs. My husband & I go to their luncheon every year to learn more about what they are doing as well as contribute any other ways.
July 15, 2009 at 10:25 pm #671966
The Velvet BulldogParticipantThis thread reflects why it’s so difficult to deal with the issue of homelessness–because there are so many different reasons for it. Some people live out of their cars due to circumstances beyond their control; and some live in cars because they choose to spend their monthly checks on drugs (I’ve worked with the homeless community, so yeah, it happens.) I think we can all agree however, that living out of a car isn’t the norm. It’s reasonable for Lindsay to ask the SPD to do a drive-by and check out the situation. If they’re people who need help and access to services, they can be helped. If they’re people who are engaging in illicit activities, they can be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
July 15, 2009 at 11:12 pm #671967
alki_2008ParticipantVelvetBulldog – great summary.
FullTilt – do you really consider the government is “rewarding” failed companies? The government (you and me) now OWN parts of those companies…and how many people would lose their jobs and be living out of their cars if the government didn’t lend those billions of dollars? Not everyone working at bailed out companies are high-salaried employees.
I’m always amazed at how everything turns around to blaming the wealthy. Well, it’s apparently going to be those ultra-wealthy folks paying for Obama’s government healthcare stuff…through income tax surcharges. So, the wealthy will be paying for public healthcare…even though they probably won’t be using any of it.
As much as people like to demonize the wealthy…it takes wealthy people to pay for services for the poor. Would there be any philanthropy without wealth? Maybe it would be considerate to find out how much money wealthy folks contribute to charity before demonizing all of them based solely on their level of income.
EDIT: One other thing. If it’s so bad to be concerned about people living in cars/vans…then why is it okay to complain about neighbors that don’t maintain their houses? Maybe those homeowners can’t afford to make repairs, but we don’t sympathize with them and instead have the city fine them to get their houses repaired? Seems a bit hypocritical.
July 15, 2009 at 11:31 pm #671968
ricoMemberGeez, being criticized for complaining about people living in a van in the alley behind your house.
If this shows up in the alley behind my home for any significant period of time you can bet that there will be something going on besides complaining, like get the f#%@ out of here, stated in several very clear ways. And I don’t care what you think, it’s not OK with me to live in such a location, there is still lots of room at the various under viaduct spaces for such a residence.
July 15, 2009 at 11:40 pm #671969
FullTiltParticipantalki_2008 So how much do you think your going to get now that you are part owner of JP Morgan? They just reported record profits. Are you getting a dividend check from Gm this year? I am anxiously awaiting mine.
I think people demonize the extreme wealthy because a vast majority of them behave that way. Company owners that create vast wealth on the backs of employees that they pay as little as possible, really deserve little sympathy. Especially when they recieve GIANT buy outs only to throw parties for high level execs and lay off the low end workers.
I totally agree with your edit.
July 16, 2009 at 8:54 am #671970
alki_2008ParticipantFullTilt – actually, the government that gave JP Morgan Chase so much money has received $795 million in dividends from JPMC. And we don’t own JPMC anymore, since they’ve repaid all the TARP money they received. Besides that one bank…the 10 largest banks together have paid the government (you and me) about $1.8 Billion in dividends so far and have paid back half of the TARP money they received. I’ve seen calculations that the government’s dividend return from those banks was around 5% on an annualized basis, which is pretty darn good nowadays.
July 16, 2009 at 3:21 pm #671971
JoBParticipantalki_2008
let’s see.. their bad business decisions nearly bankrupted them.. we loaned them money, let them shed their bad loans and dump all of those losses on their stakeholders (yup.. those were our retirement funds)… and 5% annualized for the government is a good deal for us?
We personally took a 40% hit on captive investments (retirement funds controlled by managers we didn’t get to choose who made investment decisions with our money based on fraudulent information)…
i am not so impressed with their “returns” or with the bonuses they were awarded for fleecing us.
Just as i will bet those who are stuck with houses they can’t sell at any price are not so pleased with the outcome of all this “normalization”…
but hey.. the banks are loaning on high end properties again so all those who are now getting bonuses for increasing their companies bottom line at everyone else’s expense can buy the home of their dreams:)))
ain’t life grand?
July 16, 2009 at 6:16 pm #671972
alki_2008ParticipantJoB – Wow, I’m so tired of seeing all your posts start with “alki_2008”. My reply about the returns from the banks wasn’t implying that it was a money-maker for the general public. It was a statement of facts in response to FullTilt’s question “much do you think your going to get now”.
Did the banking system downfall hurt everyone? Heck yeah! But that was what happened, and the question was how the government was going to respond to it. They could’ve NOT bailed out the banks, but would that have left the economy better off? We’ll never know. They did what they did, so just accept it and move on.
The real estate prices…everything was over-priced anyway. Buyers may not be thrilled that they can’t sell their houses for what they paid, but they paid too much anyway. I’m sure those same buyers that sold a house to buy the new one weren’t complaining that the house they sold increased at an atypical rate. The price increases were not sustainable (ie, housing bubble that was chatter long before the banking system problems) and no “investment” is guaranteed. And yes, buying a house is an “investment”. If people plan to live in their houses until they die, then they don’t need to worry about how much the house is worth on the open market because they wouldn’t be trying to sell it.
July 16, 2009 at 6:49 pm #671973
JoBParticipantalki_2008..
i am truly sorry you don’t appreciate the exchange of ideas.. but that’s what a public forum is about.. the exchange of ideas…
and i am unlikely to agree with you on much… so you are unlikely to appreciate my posts.
it’s too easy to sanitize what has occurred to our economy with language.. or by compartmentalizing… thereby distracting everyone from the reality of what has occurred.
Full Tilt is right.. this is not a good deal for the American taxpayer and there isn’t any way to present it as one.
The average American taxpayer took a huge bath in this economic meltdown… and although the banks are doing well enough to repay their loans.. the American taxpayer sure isn’t.
It may or may not have been necessary to bail the banking companies out before they took the entire economy down with them.. i think the jury is still out on that one…
but what has helped them the most was the economic leverage to avoid credit downgrades that would have forced them to bankruptcy by demanding an immediate accounting. They bought time to restructure and to dump their mess on us and they did that with our money…
they cost us far more than the 5% they are paying back…
even if you compartmentalize… my guess is that 5% doesn’t even begin to touch the loss of revenue for our government their fraudulent manipulation of credit created.
but hey.. we saved their bacon and their executives are now getting bonused for “saving” their companies.
Pointing out that they are repaying their debt does not absolve them of responsibility for what they have created..
nor does it loosen the credit markets making it possible for those without great assets or access to public programs to purchase homes.
and the current inability to access credit is not only fueling the “market correction” in housing.. a market correction made necessary by the rampant manipulation of credit markets … but continues to contribute to the downward spiral.
Have you checked your credit score lately? if you carried any balance on credit cards you will likely find that your credit limits were reduced thereby affecting your credit score. If you didn’t, you probably had cards canceled… thereby affecting your credit score.
i know.. i checked ours and although it has not affected our ability to get a loan yet.. our score dropped substantially while our circumstances, credit history and ability to pay remained the same.
Oh.. and dare i mention that the rates went up substantially too to cover the credit losses that those same agencies created for themselves by granting dabbling in fraudulant loans?
The adjustment in our credit score occurred as a direct result of the credit agencies own actions… this banking industry that has saved itself and is repaying our loans…
the joke is that most of the companies that closed our dormant accounts are now offering us cards…. and we would have to accept their offers to rehabilitate our credit rating to it’s former level.
pretty funny isn’t it? that is, if you don’t mind the joke being on you..
you really have to be into irony to see the humor.
July 16, 2009 at 7:01 pm #671974
JoBParticipantoh.. one more thing…
planning to or having the ability to stay in your house until you die will not isolate you from the collapsing values in the housing market…
though i admit, if you die you won’t care much.
your asset has been devalued… no matter how you look at it.
If you owe substantially less on your home than it’s current market value (more than 20% less or yours is a toxic loan in a devaluing market), if you still have a job, if you can still make your mortgage payments, if you don’t have a medical emergency and if you don’t get a better job requiring you to move…
if all that is true…
you may be able to wait out and survive this “market correction” but you sure aren’t going to recover your investment unless you have the cash to profit from other people’s misfortune.
For those with cash.. this is certainly an opportunity.
but even they would do well to wait to find the bottom of this “correction” or they may find themselves owning homes that are worth less than they paid for them…
why do you think the banks aren’t loaning on properties without substantial down payments right now?
some wonder if 20% is a large enough margin of safety.. especially on what used to be called an inexpensive property.
July 16, 2009 at 8:46 pm #671975
JiggersMemberBack to the topic. Living in a car or in the park is surely not fun and I’m sure the last thing a human being wants to do regardless what situation they were put in. No one has a right to profile someone who is sleeping in a park,doorway or car. You yourself can be there before you know it. This recession is a horrible one and is putting human beings in a place they don’t want to be. Just because you’re doing well doesn’t mean that you have the right to judge and make fun of others who aren’t doing well. There are a lot of you out here who doesn’t give a crap but that’s how you are anyways. It is natural for a human to feel good about themselves downriding on another persons misery. It is the Seattle Freeze. Too many self-absorbed A*hole people here.
July 16, 2009 at 11:48 pm #671976
CountingCoupMemberJust getting into this post, but I agree with Jiggers.
There are many reasons you or someone you know may end up in or on the street. It doesn’t mean you are dangerous or a menace to those around you.
It just means your inconvenient for the have’s soy they can complain about the have not’s…
It’s no wonder why the indigenous population whom lived here in the last two centuries were quickly routed out by the settlers.
July 17, 2009 at 12:03 am #671977
ricoMemberSpeaking for myself and possibly others who would prefer to not have people living in cars in the alley behind the fence where my two young daughters play, feel free to welcome the cars to your alley.
If it were me living in a car I would personally be sensitive to perception of those who live in neighborhoods who may be leery of my presence and seek less impactful places to park.
And I do not consider this profiling, or a method of feeling good about someone elses misery nor as a reason to complain, just simply safety, just as I am leery of many people who I pass outside my work downtown.
Maybe some of you could offer one of these folks a place in your driveway instead of sitting at your computer belittling those who are not comfortable with people living in cars in the alley behind their homes. It would not only solve the issue that this post began with, it would also make you feel better about yourself, a win-win.
July 17, 2009 at 12:49 am #671978
EmmyJaneParticipantWell said Rico.
July 17, 2009 at 12:54 am #671979
JoBParticipantrico..
underlying your comments is the assumption that someone living in a van in your alley would make your children less safe.
doesn’t that depend upon who is in the van and why they are parked there?
as the concerned parent of children.. where would you suggest a parent with children who found themselves homeless park their van at night to increase the safety of their children?
NIMBY becomes less relevant when you ask the question from that perspective.
your alley is probably the safest place for their children.
July 17, 2009 at 1:27 am #671980
CountingCoupMemberRico, I don’t seem to have a problem with them, but since you do, I say put your mouth where your keyboard is and let em know you don’t want them in your neighborhood…
Lets see how that works for you, feel safe in numbers?….take EmmyJane with you, I’m sure that will sway them :-)
July 17, 2009 at 1:45 am #671981
jamminjMembercurious… WWJD??
“Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?” Then he will answer them, saying, “Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” ~Mark 25:44-45
Homelessness from a Biblical Perspective
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/29983/homelessness_from_a_biblical_perspective.html?cat=9
July 17, 2009 at 2:10 am #671982
EmmyJaneParticipantCountingCoup- do you want Rico to take EmmyJane the Rottweiler or EmmyJane the human? EmmyJane the Rottweiler is a huge sissy who has the wonderful dog gift of accepting anyone that will give her a pet so I don’t think she’ll be kicking anyone out of any neighborhood. :-) I’m going to go so far as to nominate her as the head of the welcome committee for homeless people in vans.
July 17, 2009 at 2:12 am #671983
CountingCoupMemberBwahahahahaha ok you got me on that one…
July 17, 2009 at 6:42 am #671984
khMemberi am with rico on this one. and am surprised that full tilt continues to comment on the blog about controversial topics, being a business and all.
July 17, 2009 at 7:34 am #671985
bluebirdMemberAnd I agree with kh agreeing with rico and am also surprised by full tilt. You won’t find me buying his ice cream. Way to partisan and confrontational when disagreeing with anyone.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.