Question:
>Your system in NYC seems to me to be better than most cities. I had not heard >of it before. I have long been an advocate of requiring behavior changes for >those to who we give money. Certainly taking meds for the mentally ill should >be a requirement and supervised. The addicted need to be proved to be drug >free. >Nonetheless, I thought this one man’s idea is worth exploring. For those who >went to the web site, there was a picture of the 100 sq ft room with a bunk >bed, an easy chair, a chest of drawers with a TV on it looked quite >comfortable. I assume there would have to be a shared bathroom nearby. >-Connie
Grouping all the homeless in some kind of colony will only replicate the problems the shelters experience. The strong will prey on the weak, the disturbed on the sane, drugs will continue to flow. Far better to have an incentive program and disperse the housing in small units through the community. With adequate monitoring and support for a long period of time.
Response:
>>Unitarians don’t have a creed, >You said it. Not a religion. A cult.
Unitarianism is as far from a cult as you can get. Cult: Adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices An interest followed with exaggerated zeal Unitarians do not share an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, nor are they zealous in promoting their religion. Unitarianism is the direct opposite of a cult — there is nothing to hold its members to the church except the fellowship they may find there with others, each of whom forms his or her personal spiritual path. What’s more, each Unitarian congregation is unique. Ministers are elected by the congregation and serve at its pleasure. Unlike in a cult, the minister has no authority whatsoever over individual members and their beliefs. A cult attempts to attract members to an exclusive, closed belief system and to maintain total control over members’ lives. Something like Jim Jones or the Moonies. You are just blowing hot air on this one, Jim.
Response:
>Like I said, Rita. The mouse behind the refrigerator. Would you >consider Scientology a religion? The Scientologists do. Whatever >floats your boat is fine with me, but what was it Sordo said, "Secular >Humanism"? Maybe Philosophy is a better term for what you believe, >than "Religion" — sort of a convergence of liberal politics and quasi >religion.
Scientology charges people to go up in its ranks. So, no, I don’t consider it a religion but rather a cult. However, this may be an arbitrary distinction. Religion has a spiritual dimension and if you can experience that only in a religion with an arbitrary authority and creed, then more power to you. But you can hardly deny others to form beliefs as in "the spirit of the universe" or "the oneness of mankind" or feelings of being one with nature and all humans who have come before and will come after. Why should these beliefs not be called religion? Why must religion be defined as bowing to some belief system imposed from without oneself? Why are those who formulated the major or minor religions better suited to deal with spiritual matters than each individual? Unitarians do have ministers but they serve as guides, not authority figures. Our services are eclectic and there are study groups on Buddhism, Christianity, etc., and people listen, learn, participate and decide for themselves on the spiritual path they wish to take. But if you want to discuss spirituality in concrete terms, it really can’t be done very well at all. I’m sorry you don’t understand, but then people are in general taught to think of religion as being synonymous with a fixed belief system imposed from without. Seems you are one of those people. Seen that way, it is a very limiting concept, giving power over one’s beliefs to others. Obviously, Unitarians find their religion helpful to them in living their lives and in joining with others on a spriritual quest. It is not a religion that appeals to those who want absolute certainty of belief and some authority to tell them what is right or wrong. We don’t prosylyte — people come to the UU churches from many other religious backgrounds. I asked our minister, "Is there any point of belief on which all UUs agree?" and his answer was very UU, "Probably not."
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >We haven’t a perfect solution, but gradually the city began a >sort of incentive system — homeless signed up in day drop in >shelters or regular homeless shelters for drug and alcohol treatment >programs and for medical care and counseling if mentally ill. Most >seem to be one or the other, at least to some degree, or both. >Then after "proving themselves" by working on these problems, they >were helped to sign up for SSI if eligible by virtue of disability, >or public assistance and/or to get some kind of employment. >Finally those who stuck with the program were offered some kind of >subsidized housing — usually a room or very small apartment, >and sometimes in buildings with social workers, mental health people >looking in, sometimes not. >My daughter tells me a study has been done that shows that just giving >the homeless a decent place to live seems to be as successful as having >them go through the various treatment options. But it is only one study. >And even if it works in that those given housing with no strings attached >become stabilized, this certainly would function as a honey pot to attract >more homeless to any area offering this. Resources for housing and funds >are limited in cities and given the fact that the climate in SF is more >agreeable than in many parts of the country, I agree you would have an >influx. A more nuanced and step by step approach with the individual having >to meet certain behavioral goals would seem to me to be far better.
Your system in NYC seems to me to be better than most cities. I had not heard of it before. I have long been an advocate of requiring behavior changes for those to who we give money. Certainly taking meds for the mentally ill should be a requirement and supervised. The addicted need to be proved to be drug free. Nonetheless, I thought this one man’s idea is worth exploring. For those who went to the web site, there was a picture of the 100 sq ft room with a bunk bed, an easy chair, a chest of drawers with a TV on it looked quite comfortable. I assume there would have to be a shared bathroom nearby. -Connie
Response:
> Tiny houses seen as answer for homeless > Advocate says the units would work if government would just bend rules a bit. > By Herbert A. Sample — Bee San Francisco Bureau > Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 3, 2004
The U.S. had those 150 years ago. They were called slave quarters. The current idea is simply a cop out. Reagan cut Federal money for mental institutions, driving most of these people onto the streets. So a majority of homeless people need mental help. The idea of building shacks for homeless people can do nothing but incease crime, violate zoning laws, reduce property values, and piss people off.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Tiny houses seen as answer for homeless > Advocate says the units would work if government would just bend rules a bit. > By Herbert A. Sample — Bee San Francisco Bureau > Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 3, 2004 >The U.S. had those 150 years ago. They were called slave quarters. >The current idea is simply a cop out. Reagan cut Federal money for mental >institutions, driving most of these people onto the streets. So a majority >of homeless people need mental help. >The idea of building shacks for homeless people can do nothing but incease >crime, violate zoning laws, reduce property values, and piss people off.
It is a very bad idea. Better idea is to provide housing, with services such as mental health care and so forth in small residences around the city. We have some of these in New York City, and they work out well. But we don’t have enough of them. We also have a system where people have to prove themselves to be taking medication and be stable before being assigned permanent housing. There are only so many resources to go around, and the homeless themselves need to cooperate in the process. So people have to live in shelters and work up to permanent housing, with mental health treatment and/or drug treatment programs, and developing some source of income, be it some kind of employment or SSI.
Response:
Is this one of those ideas that is based on the idea if you build it they will come? What happens if you buid it and they do not come? Iseem to recall that is basic idea has been tried before in Los Angeles. How successful was that effort.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Tiny houses seen as answer for homeless > Advocate says the units would work if government would just bend rules a bit. > By Herbert A. Sample — Bee San Francisco Bureau > Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 3, 2004 > SAN FRANCISCO – It’s not much bigger than a large garden shed, but Jim Reid – > building contractor, perennial candidate and thinker of unorthodox ideas – > believes it can be one solution to this city’s vexing homeless problem. > The not-so-simple trick is convincing everyone else. > Reid’s brainchild is to build hundreds of 100-square-foot homes he calls > Shelter Ones in neighborhoods around San Francisco as residences for homeless > persons willing to perform some manual labor in return. > As a concept, there are some here who think Reid may be onto something. The > Board of Supervisors in April asked city agencies to analyze the notion, and > what they found were minor qualms and one big hurdle: State-mandated minimum > floor space requirements for dwellings. > But Reid labors on, in any forum he can, confident that he has discovered an > answer to a complicated problem if only government would bend a bit. > "Government has no common sense," he said in an interview. "I mean, they look > at this house and they say, ‘It’s illegal.’ But it’s really needed." And though > no one is quite ready to give the go-ahead for Reid’s concept yet, it has its > supporters. > "Yeah, he’s endured a lot of ridicule, but they’re cute little houses," said > Barbara Meskunas, president of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, > an influential group whose imprimatur Reid would need if his idea were to get > off the ground. > "I’m sure his little house is a whole lot better than some of the in-law units > that are in most of our neighborhoods," she added. "They’re certainly better > than many of the single-room-occupancy hotels that we put homeless people in." > Reid, 54, has been pushing his Shelter One concept for years now through his > nonprofit firm, Habitat for the Homeless, and during two quixotic campaigns for > mayor, last year and in 1999. To prove his point to the skeptics, he built and > lived for a time in a prototype. > The wood-frame cottage sports a kitchenette and an enclosed bathroom – though > the tub appears a bit smaller than normal and the sink sits above the toilet. > Across from the kitchenette is a "loft bed" above a seating area with a small > window. Nearby is a tiny closet with a combination washer-dryer. > Reid insists Shelter Ones could be built for as little as $6,000 if the > materials and construction labor are donated, or $30,000 if not, excluding land > costs. Larger versions would be two and three times larger. > The Taj Mahal they aren’t. But Reid explains that for some homeless people, a > tiny house would be better than the street or shelters. And for low-income > couples, the larger varieties could help them get started as homeowners. > "People don’t have a choice," Red said. "You could buy a 2,000-square-foot > house that costs a half a million dollars or rent a place. That’s all. And I > would like to give people a choice of renting 600 square feet or buying 300 > square feet." > Reid may be convinced of his idea’s worth as an answer to homelessness, but > others aren’t so sure. > "I’ve got a problem with it as housing," said Paul Boden, executive director of > the Coalition on Homelessness, citing Reid’s proposal that Shelter One > residents perform neighborhood cleanup duties in lieu of rent. "I don’t have a > problem with it as (temporary) shelter." > Sam Davis, an architecture professor at the University of California, Berkeley, > said he doubts the city and neighborhood groups would allow enough Shelter Ones > to be built to put a sizable dent in homelessness. > Further, he said the homes lack the on-site social services included with the > "supportive housing," the city now focuses on. Yet, Davis included Reid’s idea > in an upcoming book on designing living spaces for the homeless. > "I think what’s interesting about him and people like him is they are using the > knowledge that they have, they’re using their skills and expertise, to try and > attack the problem," he said. > When city building inspectors took a look at the prototype, they found glitches > that seemed correctable, such as missing plumbing fixtures and the lack of a > heating system. > The big hurdle, they noted, was a state law that requires a minimum of 220 > square feet of usable floor space for an "efficiency" unit. Shelter One has > only 50 square feet, but Reid says there is an exemption for homeless housing. > Then, of course, there are city zoning ordinances to deal with. > "The obvious issue here is, do you want to create a double standard for people > who live in complying houses and for people … who don’t?" said Laurence > Kornfield, chief building inspector for the city. "That would be for the state > Legislature to consider." > Reid says he’ll prod local legislators to look into the issue. In the meantime, > he’s a fervent as ever about Shelter One. That focus has led some observers to > consider him and his idea a bit eccentric, though Reid characterizes it > somewhat differently. > "No one’s thinking outside the box on this, and they have to," he said. > "Smaller is the answer." > http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/9871234p-10793495c.html (includes > picture)
Response:
, >"Respect the best in all religions", eh ? Who is it that decides >just what is best and worst ? I’ve always heard that the world is >made up of two kinds of people. Good and Bad. The Good (Religious) >decide who is who. So, according to you, I see the Unitarians are >more religious than I thought Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Individual decide what they want to "take" from this religion or that. What’s wrong with that? After all, religions were formed by specific individuals and some parts of them are worth considering, while others are not — in each person’s judgement. Unitarians simply do not expect members to agree on everything. There is no overriding "creed". >A wise man once said something to the effect: "To respect >everything is to respect nothing".
And that is certainly true. We all make value judgments on what is worth respecting. If you want perfect unanimity, then join a religion that demands that and adhere to its teachings 100%. We all have choices. There is a choice to accept some one authority on religion and the choice to decide what one believes on one’s own. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
>Unitarians don’t have a creed,
You said it. Not a religion. A cult. but they do have general principles. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Some are deists, some agnostics, some atheists. Unitarians respect >the best in all religions, although mouse religions have escaped my >notice to date. Perhaps tomorrow? >Officially: >With its historical roots in the Jewish and Christian traditions, Unitarian >Universalism is a liberal religion — that is, a religion that keeps an open >mind to the religious questions people have struggled with in all times and >places. We believe that personal experience, conscience and reason should be the >final authorities in religion, and that in the end religious authority lies not >in a book or person or institution, but in ourselves. We are a "non-creedal" >religion: we do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. >So, Jeff, you may think Unitarians have no right to call themselves >a religion, but it seems for you a religious person must accept some >religious "authority"? Or that a person can’t be a "spiritual" person >without accepting some religious authoirty? Or that a person can’t find >his or her own way on questions of God and the meaning of existence? >With that view, Unitarians would differ. >The principles most Unitarians share are: >We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant >to affirm and promote > * The inherent worth and dignity of every person; > * Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; > * Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our >congregations; > * A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; > * The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our >congregations and in society at large; > * The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; > * Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a >part. >The living tradition which we share draws from many sources: > * Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all >cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the >forces which create and uphold life; > * Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront >powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming >power of love; > * Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and >spiritual life; > * Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by >loving our neighbors as ourselves; > * Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the >results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit. > * Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the >sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of >nature. >Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we >are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free >congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual >trust and support.
Response:
>Rita, > In a wager you can’t have three winning scenarios. You either win or >you lose. Pascal is taking the position that he prefers not to plead >ignorance since that would not have a winning scenario, it would be the >same as a loss. Therefore, Pascal is embracing known probabilities >rather than hoping the quarter lands on its edge. >Bob >Ol’Original
We know the odds for the toss of a coin. That is knowable. The existence of God is quite a different matter — a concept that can be disputed on many grounds. One God, whose God, many Gods? Which God must one believe in? The Roman Catholic God, the Southern Baptist God, the Jehovah Witness God, the Mormon God, Allah, Jesus? It assumes we know the mind of that God in relation to human beings, if indeed there is one. Almost all religions have at one time or another condemned unbelievers to hellfire for refusing not just to believe in their God, but for failing to follow this or that rule of their belief system. Pascal’s premise is that there is one true religion and that one who does not espouse it will suffer in the afterlife. It presumes a God who will punish those who don’t blindly assent to his existence. That, to me, is irrational, since if there is a God he or she would not be the kind of being who would punish humans for not knowing the unknowable. It is based on fear of hell. And it is not rational to me that a God who created us all would be that kind of petty tyrant, if indeed a God exists. That would mean God plays very nasty games. Refusing to give us firm evidence of his or her existence, yet making us assent on the basis of no real knowledge. I prefer a religion that centers on the search for how to lead a good life on this earth. Nothing I have read about the major religions of the world gives me a reason to live by faith and faith alone in any of them. It seems cowardly to me to make a wager that is against reason — and Pascal says that God’s existence can’t be known by reason — in order to avoid possible punishment in the afterlife. It is an argument based on fear. Voltaire protested that there is something unseemly about the whole Wager. He suggests that Pascal’s calculations, and his appeal to self-interest, are unworthy of the gravity of the subject of theistic belief.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Rita, > You might want to consider this: >God either exists or He doesn’t. Either I believe in God or I don’t. Of >the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage. To avoid that >possibility, I believe in God. Blaise Pascal > Would that god be Allah? or Zeus? or Ctulhu? Careful now, >you mustn’t take any chances. Better believe in all of them. >Ctulhu is even worse than Jehovah when he gets annoyed >with people: you’d better not tick him off.
Sorry I’m late but the subject, "houses for the homeless" threw me off. Although most predominant in Japan, many in the far east prefer exactly this, believe in them all, it’s good for business. Rochester Minnesota USA
Response:
Rita, In a wager you can’t have three winning scenarios. You either win or you lose. Pascal is taking the position that he prefers not to plead ignorance since that would not have a winning scenario, it would be the same as a loss. Therefore, Pascal is embracing known probabilities rather than hoping the quarter lands on its edge. Bob Ol’Original – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Rita, > You might want to consider this: >God either exists or He doesn’t. Either I believe in God or I don’t. Of >the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage. To avoid that >possibility, I believe in God. Blaise Pascal >Bob >Ol’Original > There is a 3rd choice — one simply does not know. > And feels no need to take on Pascal’s wager.
– In times of change, there is no incentive so great, and no medicine so powerful as hope for a better tomorrow.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Tiny houses seen as answer for homeless >Advocate says the units would work if government would just bend rules a bit. >By Herbert A. Sample — Bee San Francisco Bureau >Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 3, 2004 >SAN FRANCISCO – It’s not much bigger than a large garden shed, but Jim Reid – >building contractor, perennial candidate and thinker of unorthodox ideas – >believes it can be one solution to this city’s vexing homeless problem. >The not-so-simple trick is convincing everyone else. >Reid’s brainchild is to build hundreds of 100-square-foot homes he calls >Shelter Ones in neighborhoods around San Francisco as residences for homeless >persons willing to perform some manual labor in return. > I wish someone would spend as much time and money in sending them back > to Mexico as they do dreaming up all of these Socialist programs. > You house all of these, next year there wil be just as many new ones > looking for a handout.
I don’t suppose you have some statistics to back up what you just said, that the vast majority of the homeless are illegal aliens.
Response:
Rita, You might want to consider this: God either exists or He doesn’t. Either I believe in God or I don’t. Of the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage. To avoid that possibility, I believe in God. Blaise Pascal Bob Ol’Original – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Since I volunteered for some time at my church’s >>For someone who has daily preached secular fundamentalism >>against every religion known to man in this news group, don’t >>you think it’s a little disingenuous to claim membership in any >>church ? >>Inquiring minds want to know. >Ah, but Rita’s church doesn’t believe in anything Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. >Obviously a liberal establishment. > You expected maybe I’d be a Southern Baptist? I have the > same religion as: > Abigail Adams* > John Adams* > John Quincy Adams > Ethan Allen > John C. Calhoun > William S. Cohen > Paul H. Douglas > Millard Fillmore* > Benjamin Franklin* > Horace Greeley* > Thomas Jefferson* > Thomas Paine > William J. Perry > Paul Revere* > Josiah Quincy (1722-1864) > Elliot L. Richardson > Leverett Saltonstall > Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)* > William Howard Taft* > Daniel Webster* > Henry David Thoreau > Henry Wadsworth Longfellow > Nathaniel Hawthorne > Ralph Waldo Emerson > Charles Darwin > Alexander Graham Bell > John Dewey > And many others who believed in "nothing at all":) > * People marked with an asterisk have appeared on postage stamps (in most cases, > US stamps).
– In times of change, there is no incentive so great, and no medicine so powerful as hope for a better tomorrow.
Response:
>Rita, > You might want to consider this: >God either exists or He doesn’t. Either I believe in God or I don’t. Of >the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage. To avoid that >possibility, I believe in God. Blaise Pascal
Would that god be Allah? or Zeus? or Ctulhu? Careful now, you mustn’t take any chances. Better believe in all of them. Ctulhu is even worse than Jehovah when he gets annoyed with people: you’d better not tick him off.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>>Since I volunteered for some time at my church’s >>>>For someone who has daily preached secular fundamentalism >>>>against every religion known to man in this news group, don’t >>>>you think it’s a little disingenuous to claim membership in any >>>>church ? >>>>Inquiring minds want to know. >>>Ah, but Rita’s church doesn’t believe in anything Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. >>>Obviously a liberal establishment. >>You expected maybe I’d be a Southern Baptist? I have the >>same religion as: >> Abigail Adams* >> John Adams* >> John Quincy Adams >> Ethan Allen >> John C. Calhoun >> William S. Cohen >> Paul H. Douglas >> Millard Fillmore* >> Benjamin Franklin* >> Horace Greeley* >> Thomas Jefferson* >> Thomas Paine >> William J. Perry >> Paul Revere* >> Josiah Quincy (1722-1864) >> Elliot L. Richardson >> Leverett Saltonstall >> Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)* >> William Howard Taft* >> Daniel Webster* >> Henry David Thoreau >> Henry Wadsworth Longfellow >> Nathaniel Hawthorne >> Ralph Waldo Emerson >> Charles Darwin >> Alexander Graham Bell >> John Dewey >>And many others who believed in "nothing at all":) >>* People marked with an asterisk have appeared on postage stamps (in most cases, >>US stamps). > *P*H*O*N*E*Y* >Rita is a Unitarian — which means she is pretty much free to believe >in God, or Buddha, or the mouse behind her refrigerator. Personally, I >think referring to Unitarianism as a "religion" is a stretch, but to >each his own. >Correct me if I’m wrong, Rita.
Unitarians don’t have a creed, but they do have general principles. Some are deists, some agnostics, some atheists. Unitarians respect the best in all religions, although mouse religions have escaped my notice to date. Perhaps tomorrow? Officially: With its historical roots in the Jewish and Christian traditions, Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion — that is, a religion that keeps an open mind to the religious questions people have struggled with in all times and places. We believe that personal experience, conscience and reason should be the final authorities in religion, and that in the end religious authority lies not in a book or person or institution, but in ourselves. We are a "non-creedal" religion: we do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. So, Jeff, you may think Unitarians have no right to call themselves a religion, but it seems for you a religious person must accept some religious "authority"? Or that a person can’t be a "spiritual" person without accepting some religious authoirty? Or that a person can’t find his or her own way on questions of God and the meaning of existence? With that view, Unitarians would differ. The principles most Unitarians share are: We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote * The inherent worth and dignity of every person; * Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; * Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; * A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; * The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; * The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; * Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. The living tradition which we share draws from many sources: * Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life; * Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love; * Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life; * Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves; * Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit. * Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature. Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.
Response:
>Rita, > You might want to consider this: >God either exists or He doesn’t. Either I believe in God or I don’t. Of >the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage. To avoid that >possibility, I believe in God. Blaise Pascal >Bob >Ol’Original
There is a 3rd choice — one simply does not know. And feels no need to take on Pascal’s wager.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> Tiny houses seen as answer for homeless > >> Advocate says the units would work if government would just bend rules >a bit. > >> By Herbert A. Sample — Bee San Francisco Bureau > >> Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 3, 2004 > >The U.S. had those 150 years ago. They were called slave quarters. > >The current idea is simply a cop out. Reagan cut Federal money for >mental > >institutions, driving most of these people onto the streets. So a >majority > >of homeless people need mental help. > >The idea of building shacks for homeless people can do nothing but >incease > >crime, violate zoning laws, reduce property values, and piss people off. > It is a very bad idea. Better idea is to provide housing, with services > such as mental health care and so forth in small residences around the > city. We have some of these in New York City, and they work out well. > But we don’t have enough of them. We also have a system where people have > to prove themselves to be taking medication and be stable before being > assigned permanent housing. There are only so many resources to go >around, > and the homeless themselves need to cooperate in the process. So people > have to live in shelters and work up to permanent housing, with mental > health treatment and/or drug treatment programs, and developing some >source > of income, be it some kind of employment or SSI. >And what about those people who are homeless who do not have a mental health >problem. Do all of the homeless have mental health problems, or have drug >problems?
No, but most are "damaged" in some profound way. Many have physical health problems that are quite severe. Those that have none of these problems usually are homeless only for short periods. Obviously those who have no health or drug problems, and are relatively young, don’t need the same kind of services. They may be homeless for short periods, but will find their way back on their own. They are a small percentage of the problem. I once did not believe this but visiting homeless shelters and working in one showed me otherwise. I am talking about the single longterm homeless population. There are many homeless families with children who simply can’t pay the rent. But they are not the homeless on the streets.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Is this one of those ideas that is based on the idea if you build it they >will come? What happens if you buid it and they do not come? Iseem to >recall that is basic idea has been tried before in Los Angeles. How >successful was that effort. >> Tiny houses seen as answer for homeless >> Advocate says the units would work if government would just bend rules a >bit. >> By Herbert A. Sample — Bee San Francisco Bureau >> Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 3, 2004 >> SAN FRANCISCO – It’s not much bigger than a large garden shed, but Jim >Reid – >> building contractor, perennial candidate and thinker of unorthodox ideas – >> believes it can be one solution to this city’s vexing homeless problem. >> The not-so-simple trick is convincing everyone else. >> Reid’s brainchild is to build hundreds of 100-square-foot homes he calls >> Shelter Ones in neighborhoods around San Francisco as residences for >homeless >> persons willing to perform some manual labor in return. >> As a concept, there are some here who think Reid may be onto something. >The >> Board of Supervisors in April asked city agencies to analyze the notion, >and >> what they found were minor qualms and one big hurdle: State-mandated >minimum >> floor space requirements for dwellings. >> But Reid labors on, in any forum he can, confident that he has discovered >an >> answer to a complicated problem if only government would bend a bit. >> "Government has no common sense," he said in an interview. "I mean, they >look >> at this house and they say, ‘It’s illegal.’ But it’s really needed." And >though >> no one is quite ready to give the go-ahead for Reid’s concept yet, it has >its >> supporters. >> "Yeah, he’s endured a lot of ridicule, but they’re cute little houses," >said >> Barbara Meskunas, president of the Coalition for San Francisco >Neighborhoods, >> an influential group whose imprimatur Reid would need if his idea were to >get >> off the ground. >> "I’m sure his little house is a whole lot better than some of the in-law >units >> that are in most of our neighborhoods," she added. "They’re certainly >better >> than many of the single-room-occupancy hotels that we put homeless people >in." >> Reid, 54, has been pushing his Shelter One concept for years now through >his >> nonprofit firm, Habitat for the Homeless, and during two quixotic >campaigns for >> mayor, last year and in 1999. To prove his point to the skeptics, he built >and >> lived for a time in a prototype. >> The wood-frame cottage sports a kitchenette and an enclosed bathroom – >though >> the tub appears a bit smaller than normal and the sink sits above the >toilet. >> Across from the kitchenette is a "loft bed" above a seating area with a >small >> window. Nearby is a tiny closet with a combination washer-dryer. >> Reid insists Shelter Ones could be built for as little as $6,000 if the >> materials and construction labor are donated, or $30,000 if not, excluding >land >> costs. Larger versions would be two and three times larger. >> The Taj Mahal they aren’t. But Reid explains that for some homeless >people, a >> tiny house would be better than the street or shelters. And for low-income >> couples, the larger varieties could help them get started as homeowners. >> "People don’t have a choice," Red said. "You could buy a 2,000-square-foot >> house that costs a half a million dollars or rent a place. That’s all. And >I >> would like to give people a choice of renting 600 square feet or buying >300 >> square feet." >> Reid may be convinced of his idea’s worth as an answer to homelessness, >but >> others aren’t so sure. >> "I’ve got a problem with it as housing," said Paul Boden, executive >director of >> the Coalition on Homelessness, citing Reid’s proposal that Shelter One >> residents perform neighborhood cleanup duties in lieu of rent. "I don’t >have a >> problem with it as (temporary) shelter." >> Sam Davis, an architecture professor at the University of California, >Berkeley, >> said he doubts the city and neighborhood groups would allow enough Shelter >Ones >> to be built to put a sizable dent in homelessness. >> Further, he said the homes lack the on-site social services included with >the >> "supportive housing," the city now focuses on. Yet, Davis included Reid’s >idea >> in an upcoming book on designing living spaces for the homeless. >> "I think what’s interesting about him and people like him is they are >using the >> knowledge that they have, they’re using their skills and expertise, to try >and >> attack the problem," he said. >> When city building inspectors took a look at the prototype, they found >glitches >> that seemed correctable, such as missing plumbing fixtures and the lack of >a >> heating system. >> The big hurdle, they noted, was a state law that requires a minimum of 220 >> square feet of usable floor space for an "efficiency" unit. Shelter One >has >> only 50 square feet, but Reid says there is an exemption for homeless >housing. >> Then, of course, there are city zoning ordinances to deal with. >> "The obvious issue here is, do you want to create a double standard for >people >> who live in complying houses and for people … who don’t?" said Laurence >> Kornfield, chief building inspector for the city. "That would be for the >state >> Legislature to consider." >> Reid says he’ll prod local legislators to look into the issue. In the >meantime, >> he’s a fervent as ever about Shelter One. That focus has led some >observers to >> consider him and his idea a bit eccentric, though Reid characterizes it >> somewhat differently. >> "No one’s thinking outside the box on this, and they have to," he said. >> "Smaller is the answer." >> http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/9871234p-10793495c.html (includes >> picture) > Jerry, my guess is that if they build it — they will come. San > Francisco already has ten times as many homeless per capita as New > York. The Board of Supes seems to be shooting for twenty.
Well, I am not so sure about that, but I guess that depends on how many are homeless and where they live. Easier to remain homeless when you live in a place like Hawaii, then it is in New York City I would imagine. And I guess the same thing can be said about those living in Los Angeles vs. those living in San Francisco. So, maybe there will make good use of thee dwellings…only time will tell of course.
Response:
> Jerry, my guess is that if they build it — they will come. San > Francisco already has ten times as many homeless per capita as New > York. The Board of Supes seems to be shooting for twenty.
That’s primarily because of the Winter temperature, nothing else. That’s why homelessness is a national problem, not a local or State prolem.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Since I volunteered for some time at my church’s >For someone who has daily preached secular fundamentalism >against every religion known to man in this news group, don’t >you think it’s a little disingenuous to claim membership in any >church ? >Inquiring minds want to know. >Ah, but Rita’s church doesn’t believe in anything Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. >Obviously a liberal establishment.
You expected maybe I’d be a Southern Baptist? I have the same religion as: Abigail Adams* John Adams* John Quincy Adams Ethan Allen John C. Calhoun William S. Cohen Paul H. Douglas Millard Fillmore* Benjamin Franklin* Horace Greeley* Thomas Jefferson* Thomas Paine William J. Perry Paul Revere* Josiah Quincy (1722-1864) Elliot L. Richardson Leverett Saltonstall Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)* William Howard Taft* Daniel Webster* Henry David Thoreau Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Nathaniel Hawthorne Ralph Waldo Emerson Charles Darwin Alexander Graham Bell John Dewey And many others who believed in "nothing at all":) * People marked with an asterisk have appeared on postage stamps (in most cases, US stamps).
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Since I volunteered for some time at my church’s >>For someone who has daily preached secular fundamentalism >>against every religion known to man in this news group, don’t >>you think it’s a little disingenuous to claim membership in any >>church ? >>Inquiring minds want to know. >Ah, but Rita’s church doesn’t believe in anything Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. >Obviously a liberal establishment. >You expected maybe I’d be a Southern Baptist? I have the >same religion as: > Abigail Adams* > John Adams* > John Quincy Adams > Ethan Allen > John C. Calhoun > William S. Cohen > Paul H. Douglas > Millard Fillmore* > Benjamin Franklin* > Horace Greeley* > Thomas Jefferson* > Thomas Paine > William J. Perry > Paul Revere* > Josiah Quincy (1722-1864) > Elliot L. Richardson > Leverett Saltonstall > Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)* > William Howard Taft* > Daniel Webster* > Henry David Thoreau > Henry Wadsworth Longfellow > Nathaniel Hawthorne > Ralph Waldo Emerson > Charles Darwin > Alexander Graham Bell > John Dewey >And many others who believed in "nothing at all":) >* People marked with an asterisk have appeared on postage stamps (in most cases, >US stamps).
There should be an asterisk after J.Q. Adams. I have a couple of sets of 22-cent stamps showing all the American presidents through Lyndon Johnson. Thomas Paine should definitely appear on a postage stamp – he’s long overdue. Maybe anticipated objections from conservative religious groups have forestalled that. He’s certainly overwhelmingly more important to American history than Paul Revere. Darwin is on some British paper currency, some of the five- or ten-pound notes, I think.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Tiny houses seen as answer for homeless >> Advocate says the units would work if government would just bend rules a bit. >> By Herbert A. Sample — Bee San Francisco Bureau >> Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 3, 2004 >The U.S. had those 150 years ago. They were called slave quarters. >The current idea is simply a cop out. Reagan cut Federal money for mental >institutions, driving most of these people onto the streets. So a majority >of homeless people need mental help. >The idea of building shacks for homeless people can do nothing but incease >crime, violate zoning laws, reduce property values, and piss people off. > It is a very bad idea. Better idea is to provide housing, with services > such as mental health care and so forth in small residences around the > city. We have some of these in New York City, and they work out well. > But we don’t have enough of them. We also have a system where people have > to prove themselves to be taking medication and be stable before being > assigned permanent housing. There are only so many resources to go around, > and the homeless themselves need to cooperate in the process. So people > have to live in shelters and work up to permanent housing, with mental > health treatment and/or drug treatment programs, and developing some source > of income, be it some kind of employment or SSI.
And what about those people who are homeless who do not have a mental health problem. Do all of the homeless have mental health problems, or have drug problems?
Response:
>Jerry, my guess is that if they build it — they will come. San >Francisco already has ten times as many homeless per capita as New >York. The Board of Supes seems to be shooting for twenty.
I have followed the homeless problem in NYC for more than 20 years. We used to have a problem like SF of countless homeless living on the streets, panhandling and frightening and annoying the public. Our subways stations had homeless sleeping there and on every train one seemed to encounter several begging in the cars. We still have a few non-conformists who prefer to live on the street. I was panhandled the other day by a Muslim woman of all things, but that was the first time in months and months I’ve been approached for money. I very much doubt she was living on the streets, however. In my neighborhood I occasionally see a homeless man sacked out in front of the OTB (off track betting run by the state), but this is rare. We haven’t a perfect solution, but gradually the city began a sort of incentive system — homeless signed up in day drop in shelters or regular homeless shelters for drug and alcohol treatment programs and for medical care and counseling if mentally ill. Most seem to be one or the other, at least to some degree, or both. Then after "proving themselves" by working on these problems, they were helped to sign up for SSI if eligible by virtue of disability, or public assistance and/or to get some kind of employment. Finally those who stuck with the program were offered some kind of subsidized housing — usually a room or very small apartment, and sometimes in buildings with social workers, mental health people looking in, sometimes not. My daughter tells me a study has been done that shows that just giving the homeless a decent place to live seems to be as successful as having them go through the various treatment options. But it is only one study. And even if it works in that those given housing with no strings attached become stabilized, this certainly would function as a honey pot to attract more homeless to any area offering this. Resources for housing and funds are limited in cities and given the fact that the climate in SF is more agreeable than in many parts of the country, I agree you would have an influx. A more nuanced and step by step approach with the individual having to meet certain behavioral goals would seem to me to be far better. Since I volunteered for some time at my church’s shelter for homeless men I did get to know the population (and also many years ago actually inspected city shelters for the Coalition for the Homeless.) So I not a "do gooder" with no appreciation of the problems. But a structured approach over time does work with most and that is the best any city can hope for so long as there are shortages of affordable housing overall. Compared to problems many cities face today, the old cheap hotels that sold a bed for a night on skid rows for a dollar or two, begin to look not so bad:) Gentrification took care of those and now the Bowery in Manhattan is upscale.
Response:
Tiny houses seen as answer for homeless Advocate says the units would work if government would just bend rules a bit. By Herbert A. Sample — Bee San Francisco Bureau Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 3, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO – It’s not much bigger than a large garden shed, but Jim Reid – building contractor, perennial candidate and thinker of unorthodox ideas – believes it can be one solution to this city’s vexing homeless problem. The not-so-simple trick is convincing everyone else. Reid’s brainchild is to build hundreds of 100-square-foot homes he calls Shelter Ones in neighborhoods around San Francisco as residences for homeless persons willing to perform some manual labor in return. As a concept, there are some here who think Reid may be onto something. The Board of Supervisors in April asked city agencies to analyze the notion, and what they found were minor qualms and one big hurdle: State-mandated minimum floor space requirements for dwellings. But Reid labors on, in any forum he can, confident that he has discovered an answer to a complicated problem if only government would bend a bit. "Government has no common sense," he said in an interview. "I mean, they look at this house and they say, ‘It’s illegal.’ But it’s really needed." And though no one is quite ready to give the go-ahead for Reid’s concept yet, it has its supporters. "Yeah, he’s endured a lot of ridicule, but they’re cute little houses," said Barbara Meskunas, president of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, an influential group whose imprimatur Reid would need if his idea were to get off the ground. "I’m sure his little house is a whole lot better than some of the in-law units that are in most of our neighborhoods," she added. "They’re certainly better than many of the single-room-occupancy hotels that we put homeless people in." Reid, 54, has been pushing his Shelter One concept for years now through his nonprofit firm, Habitat for the Homeless, and during two quixotic campaigns for mayor, last year and in 1999. To prove his point to the skeptics, he built and lived for a time in a prototype. The wood-frame cottage sports a kitchenette and an enclosed bathroom – though the tub appears a bit smaller than normal and the sink sits above the toilet. Across from the kitchenette is a "loft bed" above a seating area with a small window. Nearby is a tiny closet with a combination washer-dryer. Reid insists Shelter Ones could be built for as little as $6,000 if the materials and construction labor are donated, or $30,000 if not, excluding land costs. Larger versions would be two and three times larger. The Taj Mahal they aren’t. But Reid explains that for some homeless people, a tiny house would be better than the street or shelters. And for low-income couples, the larger varieties could help them get started as homeowners. "People don’t have a choice," Red said. "You could buy a 2,000-square-foot house that costs a half a million dollars or rent a place. That’s all. And I would like to give people a choice of renting 600 square feet or buying 300 square feet." Reid may be convinced of his idea’s worth as an answer to homelessness, but others aren’t so sure. "I’ve got a problem with it as housing," said Paul Boden, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, citing Reid’s proposal that Shelter One residents perform neighborhood cleanup duties in lieu of rent. "I don’t have a problem with it as (temporary) shelter." Sam Davis, an architecture professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said he doubts the city and neighborhood groups would allow enough Shelter Ones to be built to put a sizable dent in homelessness. Further, he said the homes lack the on-site social services included with the "supportive housing," the city now focuses on. Yet, Davis included Reid’s idea in an upcoming book on designing living spaces for the homeless. "I think what’s interesting about him and people like him is they are using the knowledge that they have, they’re using their skills and expertise, to try and attack the problem," he said. When city building inspectors took a look at the prototype, they found glitches that seemed correctable, such as missing plumbing fixtures and the lack of a heating system. The big hurdle, they noted, was a state law that requires a minimum of 220 square feet of usable floor space for an "efficiency" unit. Shelter One has only 50 square feet, but Reid says there is an exemption for homeless housing. Then, of course, there are city zoning ordinances to deal with. "The obvious issue here is, do you want to create a double standard for people who live in complying houses and for people … who don’t?" said Laurence Kornfield, chief building inspector for the city. "That would be for the state Legislature to consider." Reid says he’ll prod local legislators to look into the issue. In the meantime, he’s a fervent as ever about Shelter One. That focus has led some observers to consider him and his idea a bit eccentric, though Reid characterizes it somewhat differently. "No one’s thinking outside the box on this, and they have to," he said. "Smaller is the answer." http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/9871234p-10793495c.html (includes picture)