Homelessness in industrialized countries (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Rousseau wrote about the social contract and the movement into society much in the same way as Locke, but there were two fundamental differences. One was the belief that Rousseau had in humans in their highly individualized state. Recognizing humans were already social animals almost from birth, he envisioned a theoretical, individual state of nature, and said that "man is born free," he said, "and everywhere he is in chains." Part of man's role within a society, he believed, was the theoretical first agreement and distribution of property, which he explained in his Discourse On Equality, in which he posits that the initial division of private property was simply a strong-arm, so to speak; that the strongest necessarily prevailed upon the weaker to trade his property for security.

In other words, unlike Locke's conception of man being born a sinner and therefore uncorrupted in his move into a social or political construct (a much less theoretical and therefore empirically easy point to observe and comprehend than Rousseau's state of individualized bliss in his primal state), Rousseau saw the first impulse of society as a corrupted one, one that needed to be dealt with rather than lauded or justified.

So it all comes back to property. 

 

[rockaction]

So property. For Locke, it essentially comes down to this: Those that use the property best, within limits (Locke was no an-cap), get to keep the fruits of their labor. This is because of both efficiency and a natural morality that prevails along the edict of "those who contribute most, reap most."

Rousseau is different. Property, to him, should be up for grabs in a civilized and just society. The initial division and movement from the State Of Nature, theoretically, did not happen as justly as Locke would have us believe. As mentioned before, it was the strong preying upon the weak to give up their real natural rights in their own property, and thus the real bargain was struck. It was unfair, and done with the threat of the stick. Rousseau is really our modern liberal here.

 

[rockaction]

Which conception of what we want and which view of the movement from State of Nature to property division sounds more like the actual workings of property would seem a nice place to start if we are to argue what a just society looks like.

To me, personally, it is undeniable that all impulses are at work here. The utilitarian purpose of the division of property, the morality of those that contribute the most receiving most, the initial division in the State Of Nature as determined with an element of force -- there seems to be some fundamental truth to every one of these.

The question then becomes one of line-drawing and consistency to our original contract theory principles when the homeless question arises, at least to me.

I think maybe against this background then we can proceed with more clarity on the issue, at least in its philosophical underpinnings. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Rockaction with some serious foreplay here.

 

[rockaction]

Rockaction with some serious foreplay here.

Thanks, I'm interested to hear from others about the actual workings of homeless programs. I'm probably a little more conservative regarding program implementation, efficacy, and philosophical underpinnings than most on the board would like, but I can totally see Maurile's initial point about hunter-gatherer societies and the initial division of property being something that should be considered when homeless policy is considered. Given that recorded history is sparse, we have two guides: oral folklore and traditions, and philosophy.

Both point (almost all the folklore, all the Enlightenment philosophers) to some form of communitarianism, or at least a moral justification, regarding the initial division and current state of property rights. 

 

[Jayrod]

I'm a little late to this discussion, but am extremely interested and don't feel informed enough yet, but may have a bit to add to the discussion.

I worked last year for a for-profit company that has a mission to provide housing for societal benefit.  They use all of the various tax credit programs around the country to do this.  Unfortunately, their organization was run by a lot of the "idea" people and few/none of the "how do we actually do this and stay in business" people.  I got stuck on a massive hole of a student housing project (not the low-income housing projects I wanted to work on) that lost the company about a million dollars.  I became very miserable, deeply depressed actually, and got out in January...two months ago I went to work as a project manager for a sign company.

One thing I learned is that I don't think a business can be for-profit and do social housing projects well.  The competing motives eventually become an issue and when investors expect a certain profit margin, the end product will eventually be less than it could be or you will actually go out of business.

One new thing I did learn last year is that sticking all low-income or homeless people together in one area is detrimental to the goal of helping them better their lives.  Not sleeping in the rain is about all you provide as they will feed off of one another and usually create a horrible living environment wrought with substance abuse and domestic violence which furthers the cycles rather than breaks it. 

One of the standards of our low-income housing projects was that we intermingled full rent tenants with subsidized tenants.  Our social worker staff members were adamant about that, and I agree with it.

I am leaning closer and closer to making housing for those in need my life mission (ministry actually).  My current job is simply a means to provide for my family until I can get there...which will likely have to be phased in over years, but is also providing me further construction experience.  My mother is the executive director for a women's abuse shelter and she can do a lot to help me as well as a good friend of mine who is the director of outreach programs for the largest church in Missouri.  They both work daily in the world of homeless and people in need.  As a former CPA and finance major, I know how to generate budgets, project cash flow and make it work with lenders. 

My current dream is this;

1. Create a non-profit organization and seek donations to start with remodeling homes in low-income housing areas to generate rental properties out of them. 
   
2. Once a stable portfolio is achieved of normal rent properties, (probably about 3 or 4), make the next one a rent free/low rent facility and find a social organization that can get me connected with a family in need.
   
3. Prove viability/sustainability of this concept while developing the program for improving the rent-free tenants lives.  In the meantime, keep remodeling/generating rental properties.
   
4. Once this concept is viable and repeatable, multiply it as much as possible while continuing to accelerate it with outside fundraising.
   
5. After this is working well (hoping after 3 years)...I want to begin actual development of areas for mixed use housing.  I would start with a street of about 8 houses.  Make 4-6 full rent with 2-4 low rent/rent free.
   
6. Final stage would be full apartment buildings...either through remodel or new construction with the same concepts.
   

My main purpose of doing this as a non-profit and leaning on private donations is to avoid the bureaucracy and overhead of jumping through those governmental hoops.  The central theme will be financial sustainability of current properties while using donations to boost growth.  The free/low rent housing will be subsidized by the full rent housing.  Basically this model is exactly what my old company did, but without relying on governmental credits and trying to generate a profit.  It may limit my ability to leverage and do more, but I think expanding the portfolio of properties over time will have a great deal of effect.

At this point, this is all just me and scribbles on a napkin, but I'm starting to think it through more thoroughly.  Actually just writing this all out has been a huge help.

 

[Jayrod]

One thing of note in my plan.....we are not doing the social work.  I don't think an organization would be very good at both construction/rental property and social work.  Those aren't very similar skill sets.

I want to partner with other social organizations to help me identify people and have those organizations use us as a tool for their people in need.  We would work strictly with their financial situations to determine if/when they would pay some rent and let their lifestyle issues go through someone else.  Somewhat similar to the Finland concept, we are basically looking to provide no questions asked housing.  Since we won't be reliant on investors for current operations and won't be taking government funding, we won't have to answer to anyone else on this topic.

 

[Jayrod]

Another note (sorry, my mind is racing here), the properties will NOT be slums.  Another thing I learned last year is that decent housing is important to help people.  A place that is falling apart can become more of a burden than a benefit.  The remodels will be clean, neat and fully functioning.  Not fancy or extravagant, but not run-down either.  Money will be spent to ensure the appliances, structure, plumbing, electrical and HVAC systems are functioning well.  After that, clean drywall with neutral paint and LVT flooring throughout.  Bedrooms and living rooms get rugs.  Stuff that is easy to maintain and easy to turn over but durable.

I'm also going to include lawn care and home maintenance for the subsidized housing as both a means of further assistance and protecting the investment.  It allows for periodic inspection of the properties as well.

 

[The Big Donkey]

NPR: high cost of LA homeless camp raises eyebrows and questions

"In Los Angeles, city officials grappling with an ongoing homelessness crisis have turned to an idea that for decades was politically unpopular and considered radical: a government-funded tent encampment.

Other cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Tampa, Fla., have opened similar programs in recent years. But the high public cost of LA's first sanctioned campground — more than $2,600 per tent, per month — has advocates worried it will come at the expense of more permanent housing.

The campsite opened in late April on a fenced-in parking lot beside the 101 freeway in East Hollywood. The lot-turned-campground can accommodate up to about 70 tents in 12-by-12-foot spots marked by white squares painted on the asphalt....."

what is going on here?   that much for a tent?

 

[Sand]

But the high public cost of LA's first sanctioned campground — more than $2,600 per tent, per month — has advocates worried it will come at the expense of more permanent housing.

what is going on here?   that much for a tent?

You should see the tents.

 

[The Z Machine]

You should see the tents.

Dang, the people who live there are intense!